Good news!
Poll
 | 15 votes (20%) | ||
| | 22 votes (29.33%) | ||
| | 17 votes (22.66%) | ||
| | 41 votes (54.66%) |
75 members have voted
I'll take that chance.Quote: AZDuffmanWe have entered "Brave New World." Be careful what you wished for, you may not like the outcome.
Quote: s2dbakerI'll take that chance.
Given the poor record of most of the societal changes the last 50 years it is a chance indeed. This shows no chance of being any better. My prediction is more drugged out and depressed young people who have to endure confused gender roles.
Segregation for the win...?
From the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, article XIII, section 13, as amended following majority votes in both houses of the legislature in two successive sessions, and a popular vote of eligible voters.
Looks like those nine lawyers in DC have more work to do...too much democracy going on in flyover country.
There are a whole lot of Democrats who voted for DOMA that suddenly feel that gay marriage is just dandy. It is dandy because it is the politically convenient position for them to have rather than because they actually have deep-rooted convictions that gay marriage should be legal.
Don't make the mistake of feeling that these people really care about the issue. They just wanted the votes.
Quote: Beethoven9thWhat I find so amazing is that most gay marriage supporters throw a temper tantrum whenever anyone compares gay marriage to polygamy, yet these are the same people who go around comparing gay marriage to slavery & segregation all the time.
If one group can redefine marriage--who is to say that it can't be done again? Surely polygamy will never have the political support that gay marriage has, but the court doesn't base rulings on politics (though of course they are a part of many rulings, as much as we would like them not to be). If marriage can't be defined as being between a man and a woman, what assures us it can be defined as being between just two people?
Quote: RonCIf marriage can't be defined as being between a man and a woman, what assures us it can be defined as being between just two people?
This Christian nation is gonna have to keep up with the Muslims who can have 4.
But if you break those numbers down, you see a huge generational divide. Those older than 45 are against by a 3-2 margin, while those 45 and younger favor by an even greater 2-1 margin. This became quite apparent 5 years ago to anyone that was paying attention. So each year, month, even day that we progress in time is working against those that are against as their base dies off or leaves the voting population for nursing homes etc. It is just a forgone conclusion that as we go forward gay marriage will be the law of the land and despite the concept of states rights, the supreme court will be forced to step in and make it universal as they did with interracial marriage back in the 60's. It is just too big of a problem with people getting married in a state where it is legal and relocating to a state where it is not.
As I said, this forgone conclusion became crystal clear to me 5 years ago, so why it didn't to the righties is beyond me. I would have though some of those smart folk in the repub party would have realized this and cut their losses. Not suggesting they should change their mind and be happy about it, but just see the writing on the wall and accept the inevitable. Realize that there are some things in life that you don't like or approve of, but that's life. Cut their losses, if you will and invest those resources into a more winable battle. But instead they fought on. It was like watching someone build a sandcastle on the beach 10 yards from the water line, when the tide is coming in. It is fun to stand there and watch and see how long the castle can withstand the approaching water, but it is a forgone conclusion that 2 hours from now, that sand castle will just be a little mound of sand under water.
Quote: kewljIt's kind of humorous to me to read some of the reactions in this thread. Despite, being a gay man, I just am not that passionate about this issue. BUT, the outcome has been clear for some time. Now bear with me as my numbers may not be exact, but basically 10 years ago, 40% of the population approved of gay marriage while 60% were against. Now it's about 50-50. Some polls have a slight majority in favor of and some polls still show a slight majority against, but most reasonable people would agree it is now about 50-50.
But if you break those numbers down, you see a huge generational divide. Those older than 45 are against by a 3-2 margin, while those 45 and younger favor by an even greater 2-1 margin. This became quite apparent 5 years ago to anyone that was paying attention. So each year, month, even day that we progress in time is working against those that are against as their base dies off or leaves the voting population for nursing homes etc. It is just a forgone conclusion that as we go forward gay marriage will be the law of the land and despite the concept of states rights, the supreme court will be forced to step in and make it universal as they did with interracial marriage back in the 60's. It is just too big of a problem with people getting married in a state where it is legal and relocating to a state where it is not.
As I said, this forgone conclusion became crystal clear to me 5 years ago, so why it didn't to the righties is beyond me. I would have though some of those smart folk in the repub party would have realized this and cut their losses. Not suggesting they should change their mind and be happy about it, but just see the writing on the wall and accept the inevitable. Realize that there are some things in life that you don't like or approve of, but that's life. Cut their losses, if you will and invest those resources into a more winable battle. But instead they fought on. It was like watching someone build a sandcastle on the beach 10 yards from the water line, when the tide is coming in. It is fun to stand there and watch and see how long the castle can withstand the approaching water, but it is a forgone conclusion that 2 hours from now, that sand castle will just be a little mound of sand under water.
Very well written response!! I find myself torn on the issue. I have a gay family member who supports equality but not necessarily gay marriage ("you straight people have messed that one up enough" is one of his comments; only half-joking). It is an issue that the right should not allow to be a deal-breaker when there are so many truly more important issues overall. I'm not saying that it isn't important; just that it and abortion take too much focus away from the larger issues of the day.
There is a difference between "not being in favor" of something and using a lot of time and resources to oppose something. The former is just a position; the latter takes effort. Those efforts could be better spent defining why a conservative feels that liberals are wrong on things like bigger government, taxes, etc. I don't think a relatively small number of gay marriages has near the bad impact on our country as issues like a pork-filled immigration bill, an IRS that has gone out of control, a Congress that continues to exempt itself from the laws it passes, etc.
Perhaps you'll lose your social conservatives, but to what? Unless they can make a viable third party it's not much use to split against the larger Democratic party, so they'll probably come back anyway, and vote their best interest...eventually, with much bellyaching, but come back they will.
Quote: RonCVery well written response!! I find myself torn on the issue. I have a gay family member who supports equality but not necessarily gay marriage ("you straight people have messed that one up enough" is one of his comments; only half-joking). It is an issue that the right should not allow to be a deal-breaker when there are so many truly more important issues overall. I'm not saying that it isn't important; just that it and abortion take too much focus away from the larger issues of the day.
Thank you RonC. I think your gay family member has it just about right. lol Although perhaps it could become a bigger issue for both he and I at some point in the future if we actually find someone worth sharing life with. lol
Comedian Lewis Black had a funny take on gay marriage. He said "gay people should not only have the right to marry, but it should be required". He said "why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us". lol
Quote: NareedConsider polygamy, and polyandry for that matter. The ratio of women to men just isn't disparate enough to make it work, nor are the economics, psychology, social dynamics, etc, etc. The practice will forever be confined to a very few people, even in societies that permit it or encourage it.
So you'd consider the 44.1%* of Saudi men with multiple wives to be very few within their society that permits and encourages it? You have some unusual ideas about numbers.
* http://www.saudiinfocus.com/en/forum/showthread.php?t=702
Quote: NareedIt's not quite self-evident, but it's something easy to see if you give it a little thought.
And in your case, if you use a little imagination to develop a view that isn't really accurate.
Quote: Nareed
So let's give them something to worry about: multiple marriage families.
That's a provisional name, you understand. The idea is for two or more couples to enter into a mutual marriage. Say two men and two women all married to each other and forming a household. The numbers aren't against this. It might be very helpful for one of the wives, just as an example, to be a stay-at-home mom for the group's children, while the three other spouses work. But with the twist that she'll switch roles with the working wife, say, halfway through. That way neither woman has to suspend her career for too long, nor worry about their childrens' home lives.
Go. Worry about this.
What's to worry about? I know some people doing this very thing. Seems to work for them, doesn't bother me. Will it bother you when someone like them decides to attempt to make it official?
Quote: Nareed
Oh, just to throw some fuel to the fire: a straight couple would join with a gay couple in these kinds of multiple marriages, too. It might even be preferable, as neither spouse would worry about his or her mate sleeping with another spouse.
The people I know all sleep with each other and everyone, AFAIK, is ok with that. That's ok with you too, right?
The idea that polygamists and those engaged in adult incest (if only for the convenience of bestowing a lifelong financial benefit) won't attempt to take advantage of this turn of events is willful ignorance on the part of those holding such beliefs. It's a big ol' crazy country and if you can imagine it, someone is probably doing it. And if someone is doing it, they, or others like them, are bound to try to take a legal advantage when they see it.
So, instead of denying the possibility (or rather inevitability) of it happening, why not go on record with whether or not you think it's acceptable if/when they do? I know it's a real hoot to attempt to paint others as bigots, but your evasion is making it look more and more like you're the pot demonizing the kettle.
Quote: RonCIt [gay marriage] is an issue that the right should not allow to be a deal-breaker when there are so many truly more important issues overall.
The thing I don't understand about liberals is that a large number of them will base their entire vote on gay marriage and will ignore every other issue, yet the Republican are the ones who need to change??? Methinks those particular voters themselves need to change their priorities.
As Rick Santorum said, the Republican Party will never have smart people.Quote: kewlj...I would have though some of those smart folk in the repub party would have realized this and cut their losses...
Imagine all the voters that the Republicans can peel off then, if only they changed their position of marriage equality. Since this large number of voters only votes the one issue then if the Republicans leave the dark side, they will get more votes. Alas, Republicans will never have the elite, smart people on their side who can do math.Quote: Beethoven9thThe thing I don't understand about liberals is that a large number of them will base their entire vote on gay marriage and will ignore every other issue, yet the Republican are the ones who need to change??? Methinks those particular voters themselves need to change their priorities.
Quote: s2dbakerImagine all the voters that the Republicans can peel off then, if only they changed their position of marriage equality.
That's a myth. Google search "gabriel gomez".
Quote: RonC
Don't make the mistake of feeling that these people really care about the issue. They just wanted the votes.
They changed because of money, not votes. When a newbie gets to congress on either side they get pulled into the office of someone close to the leader and it is explained that they may vote how they want, but if they want any money or any support for what they need then they better vote as they are told.
And not just congress! Last night I was talking with a fellow dealer who said a local guy doesn't want to win whatever election he is in because he was told the same on a just much lower level.
The gay lobby has gained some kind of leverage over the leadership on the left to make this their #1 issue. Be it from money or blackmail, they have it. Otherwise no sane leader would put so much effort into something that benefits just 1% of the population. Yes, some will flip-flop with the wind, but this isn't happening by chance.
Quote: 24BingoPoor record of most of the societal changes the last 50 years?
Segregation for the win...?
Well on that point we can see how bussing has improved our school system to the point it has, er, maybe not.
But I was more thinking along the lines of:
rise of single parent households, increased drug use, rise of "not my fault" line of thought, and the PC culture that makes saying the wrong word a worse offense than violent crime.
You just called your own position a myth. So which is it then? Single issue voters only vote one issue or single issue voters only vote one issue is a myth? You seem to be just saying things without giving them much thought.Quote: Beethoven9thThat's a myth. Google search "gabriel gomez".
Quote: s2dbakerYou just called your own position a myth.Quote: Beethoven9thThat's a myth. Google search "gabriel gomez".Quote: s2dbakerImagine all the voters that the Republicans can peel off then, if only they changed their position of marriage equality.
Nope, that was your position. And what you said is a myth.
If Republicans gave up their position on marriage today, libs & their cohorts in the media would find some other way to hoodwink voters into supporting them. It just happened again in Massachusetts this week. (Like I said, google search "gabriel gomez")
Quote: s2dbakerSingle issue voters only vote one issue or single issue voters only vote one issue is a myth? You seem to be just saying things without giving them much thought.
You seem to not be giving what I said much thought. As I alluded to earlier, many people who vote Dem are single-issue voters. Yet if you take that single issue away, they'll simply find another issue to replace it, thus remaining single-issue voters who support Dems.
That said, the book on children in gay marriages is not closed yet. A few studies (of statistical question) have shown that children of gay marriages have "outcomes" similar to single parent families, which are much worse than the "typical" family structure. Perhaps laws will be changed to restrict adoptions away from gay parents if further review verifies these findings, though it would be impossible to prevent a lesbian mother from having a child.
And I would agree that you are far more likely to turn out a better child in a two-parent heterosexual family. But we allow divorce and we allow single parents despite the results it can have on children. The argument used is that it's far better to see happy parents who are apart then unhappy parents who are together.
But I'm convinced that it is the quality of the parent that matters in the development of the child. You can still get divorced and have positive results for the child, but it takes work and money and commitment from the non-custodial parent.
The SCOTUS decision will have little impact on overall society except to give gay families equal financial footings and protections that married couples have.
Quote: boymimboOn polygamy, the law can be enforced (as it was recently in BC) because polygamous marriages have been shown to be statistically harmful to women and children with much higher rates of physical and sexual abuse, higher child mortality rates, and early sexuality of the children. I think that you can ban polygamy for those reasons alone.
Have you seen the show Sister Wives? So you believe that those people who are in love should suffer because some other polygamist treated his wives bad? Sounds like discrimination to me.
Quote: boymimboThat said, the book on children in gay marriages is not closed yet.
So if gay marriage is shown to be harmful to children, you would support banning it? (If so, then at least you're consistent and can't be criticized)
Quote: boymimboOn polygamy, the law can be enforced (as it was recently in BC) because polygamous marriages have been shown to be statistically harmful to women and children with much higher rates of physical and sexual abuse, higher child mortality rates, and early sexuality of the children. I think that you can ban polygamy for those reasons alone.
I'd have to disagree.
There are already women so so far down the scale that are basically allowed to risk birth, I see no real precedence to suspect courts would ever push restrictions even father.
Yes courts step in, but plenty of crack whores (for example) have just as much latitude to give birth as every other women, until they really show some evidence and results of being a menace.
The government can't stop *any* woman from having babies, but the government can ban the form of relationship (polygamy) because it's harmful to both women and children, which is exactly what the BC Supreme court ruled. But polygamy happens in many comunities in the US and Canada, and it's estimated that 30,000 - 50,000 Americans are in a formal polygamous relationship.
And on banning gay marriage because it would be statistically much more harmful to the children of those marriage, yep, I would support that. But given that the early and challengable statistics show that kids with gay parents are better off statistically than single parents, I don't see that happening.
Quote: terapinedCheck out the cover of the New Yorker magazine. So cute yet so powerful. What a great cover. I love it. Kudos to the New Yorker.
I call it bullshit:
“Bert and Ernie are best friends. They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves. Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics... they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation.”
- Sesame Workshop statement, August 11, 2011 (issued in response to a Change.org petition to have Bert and Ernie marry which circulated shortly after gay marriage was legalized in the state of New York)
Until the people that own the characters change their position, it is not right for a magazine to depict them as something they are not. It isn't powerful, it is a misrepresentation of the characters.
Why stop there? Surely we can do better than that crowd. A half-dozen easily. Maybe a dozen. Man up!Quote: rxwineThis Christian nation is gonna have to keep up with the Muslims who can have 4.
The immigration bill actually lowers labor costs by giving preferential treatment to millions of illegal immigrants from the point of view of businesses. That is a key reason why the prior president as well as many Republican legislators support such measures.Quote: NareedNow we'll get to hear condmenations from the Republican base over "amnesty." Also how this robs them of their right to overegulate the labor market (not couched in those terms) . . .
andQuote: Beethoven9thMore liberal propaganda. It's one thing if Bert & Ernie were supposed to be gay, but Sesame Street has always denied this. That cover is dishonest, not "cute". I'm just waiting for libs to start claiming that the sun & the moon are gay.
Gays have been trying to make Bert and Ernie gay for years, they want to homophile the entire culture. This is why I have never bought the line that they just want tolerance. They demand acceptance and will swarm and attack anyone or anything that differs from their line.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe immigration bill actually lowers labor costs by giving preferential treatment to millions of illegal immigrants from the point of view of businesses. That is a key reason why the prior president as well as many Republican legislators support such measures.
There are so many questions with the current immigration bill--if we learned anything from Obamacare, it is to slow down and read the damn bill!! The bill that passes and is signed into law should be clear and concise without a ton of "gotchas" that change the bill completely. What do we really want to do to end, or sharply decrease, illegal immigration? What do we want to do to not give currently illegal immigrants better standing than citizens or legal immigrants? What pork needs to be trimmed from the bill?
I'm all for immigration reform--we have to do something; doing nothing is getting us deeper in a hole. Doing something does require border security that can't just be waived later on because we don't feel like doing it. It needs to be a concrete plan.
Got it! Single issue voters care about one issue except when they care about other issues but they do it one at a time. So single issue voters are people who prioritize their issues and will vote for the one that they consider the most important at the time.Quote: Beethoven9thAs I alluded to earlier, many people who vote Dem are single-issue voters. Yet if you take that single issue away, they'll simply find another issue to replace it, thus remaining single-issue voters who support Dems.
And that's bad how exactly?
Quote: s2dbakerGot it! Single issue voters care about one issue except when they care about other issues but they do it one at a time. So single issue voters are people who prioritize their issues and will vote for the one that they consider the most important at the time.
Nope, you still screwed it up. Liberal single-issue voters who only care about gay marriage are gullible, and if that single issue were ever taken away, they would simply latch onto another liberal issue fed to them by Dems & the media. And they would in fact remain single-issue voters who always vote Democrat (the only difference being the issue itself). Got it?
Where in the U.S. is polygamy formal and legally recognized?Quote: boymimboBut polygamy happens in many comunities in the US and Canada, and it's estimated that 30,000 - 50,000 Americans are in a formal polygamous relationship.
You said that was a myth and to look up googie gomez or something. You're really not very good at this, are you?Quote: Beethoven9thNope, you still screwed it up. Liberal single-issue voters who only care about gay marriage are gullible, and if that single issue were ever taken away, they would simply latch onto another liberal issue fed to them by Dems & the media. And they would in fact remain single-issue voters who always vote Democrat (the only difference being the issue itself). Got it?
If the reference is to the Bountiful/Blackmore case, the latest development easily available online does not show that development. A cite would be most helpful, as well as the basis for the contention about abuse. Here is one of the best of quite a few references from a couple of years ago:Quote: boymimboOn polygamy, the law can be enforced (as it was recently in BC) because polygamous marriages have been shown to be statistically harmful to women and children with much higher rates of physical and sexual abuse, higher child mortality rates, and early sexuality of the children. I think that you can ban polygamy for those reasons alone.
VANCOUVER–Two religious leaders who wanted to challenge Canada's laws against polygamy, claiming the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects religious rights, had charges against them quashed yesterday.
A B.C. Supreme Court judge threw out polygamy charges against Winston Blackmore, 53, and James Oler, 45, leaders of rival factions in the polygamous community of Bountiful in B.C.'s interior. The judge ruled the provincial government did not have the authority to pursue charges against the men.
The criminal charges were the first in Canada even though polygamy has been illegal since the 1950s. No one has ever been prosecuted. Blackmore has proclaimed the Charter protects his religious rights. . . . Blackmore was charged with one count of polygamy with at least 19 women named in an indictment.
Blackmore and Oler had petitioned the court to stay the charges, arguing the B.C. attorney general had gone "special prosecutor shopping" until he found someone who would go ahead with charges. B.C. Supreme Court Judge Sunni Stromberg-Stein agreed in a decision released yesterday, saying that appointing a third prosecutor was not within the attorney general's jurisdiction.
"A reasonable person would conclude this was because the attorney general had finally obtained the decision he wanted all along," the judge wrote. The Star
Quote: s2dbakerYou said that was a myth and to look up googie gomez or something. You're really not very good at this, are you?
You're not very good at googling or reading your own posts, are you? ;)
Quote: kewljAs I said, this forgone conclusion became crystal clear to me 5 years ago, so why it didn't to the righties is beyond me.
I agree that gay marriage will eventually be the law of the land. My problem is with taking this 'inevitability' argument and using it to subvert the democratic process via the Supreme Court.
The "righties" in Wisconsin amended the state constitution to define marriage as exclusive to a man and a woman, but the state hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1984.
Social and moral issues don't always fall easily into a left / right description. All the more reason to leave those decisions to the people.
Quote: AZDuffmanand
Gays have been trying to make Bert and Ernie gay for years, they want to homophile the entire culture. This is why I have never bought the line that they just want tolerance. They demand acceptance and will swarm and attack anyone or anything that differs from their line.
Wow, This went totally over your head. Its humor. Funny. I smiled when I saw it.
Cmon, don't you have any fun in life. Do you get jokes? Do you tell jokes?
Its a joke. Of course Burt and Ernie aren't gay, They're muppets. Stop taking everything so seriously, have some fun.
Its the weekend, yea baby. Lets see, AZ will be watching Fox all weekend and grumbling about everything. Should I do that, On the other side , Golf and kayaking this weekend. Tough choice. I choose fun, kayaking tomorrow and a round of golf Sunday. Cmon AZ, get off the couch and hit the river and the course, This is what life is really about. Fun fun fun.
Quote: Beethoven9thMore liberal propaganda. It's one thing if Bert & Ernie were supposed to be gay, but Sesame Street has always denied this. That cover is dishonest, not "cute". I'm just waiting for libs to start claiming that the sun & the moon are gay.
The Sun and moon are gay. Yup, just looked up to reconfirm. They are gay. ITS A JOKE. Of course Bert and Ernie aren't gay, its a JOKE. Stop watching Fox, its bad for your humor bone.
Get it right
Quote: AZDuffmanand
Gays have been trying to make Bert and Ernie gay for years, they want to homophile the entire culture. This is why I have never bought the line that they just want tolerance. They demand acceptance and will swarm and attack anyone or anything that differs from their line.
Yep, some homosexual activists want to make Bert and Ernie gay. These do not generalize to all gays.
It's like me saying "gun activists want to arm children". A few of them do. It probably doesn't represent the entire community.
So many Democrats are one-issue voters, but Republicans are not? Just how many GOPs are so pro-life that they can't vote for another party? How many GOPs are so anti-climate change that they can't vote for another party? How many GOPS are so anti-gay that they can't vote for another party. Give me a break.
Hell, a heck of alot of people could never vote for Obama becaue he's black, just like a hell of alot of people couldn't vote for Romney because he came across as pompous.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWhere in the U.S. is polygamy formal and legally recognized?
You are in a formal polygamous relationship if you accept that you have multiple wives. Legally recognized, no. Allowed, yes.
Just google Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or Colorado City or Hildale, UT.
Quote: terapinedThe Sun and moon are gay. Yup, just looked up to reconfirm. They are gay. ITS A JOKE. Of course Bert and Ernie aren't gay, its a JOKE.
Here's what you wrote:
Quote: terapinedCheck out the cover of the New Yorker magazine. So cute yet so powerful. What a great cover. I love it. Kudos to the New Yorker.
That sure doesn't sound like a joke to me. Sounds like you were shedding tears or something.
Quote: Beethoven9thHere's what you wrote:
That sure doesn't sound like a joke to me. Sounds like you were shedding tears or something.
Cmon, Its a great joke. Its the New Yorker, They have a long history of clever high brow cartoons. This could have been inside but they decided to put it on the cover. Wow, has the right lost their sense of humor. Don't take everything so seriously. Have a bong hit, you might laugh and get it.
Quote: boymimboSo many Democrats are one-issue voters, but Republicans are not? Just how many GOPs are so pro-life that they can't vote for another party? How many GOPs are so anti-climate change that they can't vote for another party? How many GOPS are so anti-gay that they can't vote for another party. Give me a break.
You're completely missing the point. Name one person who says, "I support Democrats on all issues except abortion. Therefore, I can't vote for them!" (You can't do it)
OTOH, there are plenty of people who make similar statements regarding Republicans and gay marriage.
Quote: boymimboHell, a heck of alot of people could never vote for Obama becaue he's black, just like a hell of alot of people couldn't vote for Romney because he came across as pompous.
Romney was fine. The problem is that there are 60 million voters out there who don't like the direction of country, yet they still voted for the guy who put us there.
Quote: boymimboYou are in a formal polygamous relationship if you accept that you have multiple wives. Legally recognized, no. Allowed, yes.
This is exactly what should have occurred with gay marriage.
Quote: terapinedCmon, Its a great joke. Its the New Yorker, They have a long history of clever high brow cartoons. This could have been inside but they decided to put it on the cover. Wow, has the right lost their sense of humor. Don't take everything so seriously. Have a bong hit, you might laugh and get it.
Then how come you were shedding tears instead of laughing? I think you were deeply touched and don't want to admit it. lol
Yeah, you're not very good at this but the flailing fun to watch.Quote: Beethoven9thThen how come you were shedding tears instead of laughing? I think you were deeply touched and don't want to admit it. lol
Quote: Beethoven9thThen how come you were shedding tears instead of laughing? I think you were deeply touched and don't want to admit it. lol
OMG, did you hack into my webcam. naughty naughty. Just kidding. Shedding tears? Seriously, where does this come from? Yes I admire the cover. Its funny. I like it a lot. Shedding tears?
I'll actually be real honest with you about this story and you are probably going to hate me for it but here goes. The truth.
The last time I actually cried was the fall of 2007. And it was totally unexpected and it really surprised me. It was the night Obama got elected. It was just incredible that a black man in this country got elected President of the United States. I didn't think I would ever see that day in my lifetime. I was very worried throughout the election process, there is so much hate out there, no way is this gonna happen. That night, Our country really came a long way. I found myself shedding tears. I was incredibly surprised how emotionally caught up in the moment I was. True story. Its also a true story that I did not shed tears over the New Yorker cartoon. I smiled instead.
Peace
