2016 Election
Quote: boymimboLet's get this by the numbers. (TV by the numbers)
Total day numbers FoxNews outnumbers all other newschannels combined with about 55% of the total news viewing audience.
[snip]
How you get 55% from that is beyond me...
you avoid defending Paul Rand. But I understand.
Quote: BuzzardNotice you avoid defending Paul Rand. But I understand.
Actually, I'm using your very own defence. He's only racist in your mind. ;)
Quote: BuzzardYeah like Paul Rand. Who believes that a business can bar a black man from eating in his restaurant because freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Constitution.
How about Obama's appointee to the Supreme Court, who thinks it is OK to discriminate against more qualified whites to promote minorities? Or colleges nationwide who do the same in admissions?
Quote: BuzzardThen you agree with his interpetation of freedom of speech, I assume.
Again, I'm only using YOUR own defense. ;)
But seriously, I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand. For example, you can allow (or not allow) people into your private residence for WHATEVER REASON YOU WANT.
Yes, that means if Buzzard doesn't feel like allowing, say, gay people (or straight people!) into his home, then he has every right to do so.
Quote: Buzzard
Higher interest payments do not raise the debt. How silly !
Of course it raises the debt level. If you're not paying more in interest then you're able to reduce your debt.
I and the people I know have jobs, we pay our taxes, we pay for our own health insurance and health care. I don't know anyone who is drawing unemployment benefits, or is on Medicaid, or receives food stamps. Why? Well, because I'm busy working and taking care of my family, and I don't believe those people are working. Virtually everyone I know identifies most closely with the Republican party.
I and the people I know believe that people should take care of themselves. If someone can't take care of themselves, their family should take care of them. We believe that the Democrats would have big government taking care of everyone.
Quote: HeadlockI'm interested in hearing from the Democratic party supporters. What is it about the Democratic party that attracts you? Or alternatively, what is is about the Republicans that you so dislike that you support the Democratic party?
I and the people I know have jobs, we pay our taxes, we pay for our own health insurance and health care. I don't know anyone who is drawing unemployment benefits, or is on Medicaid, or receives food stamps. Why? Well, because I'm busy working and taking care of my family, and I don't believe those people are working. Virtually everyone I know identifies most closely with the Republican party.
I and the people I know believe that people should take care of themselves. If someone can't take care of themselves, their family should take care of them. We believe that the Democrats would have big government taking care of everyone.
Ok, I'll take a shot.
First I work, Have never ever taken a govt handout. Never been on unemployment. Worked hard my whole life.
I'm not attracted to democrats, just disturbed by the republicans.
Freedom of choice.
Freedom to marry.
A conservative supreme court scares me because I believe these freedoms are fundamental rights.
I have compassion for the poor and sick.
All my friends work hard, no govt handouts. And virtually everyone voted for Obama.
Hard working honest people are on both sides , Repubs and Dems.
Democrats don't want big govt taking care of everyone.
It really simply comes down to this, Dems have more compassion for the poor and sick then repubs.
I am interested in Republicans who spend on job training, job incentives for welfare recipients to get off welfare. Someone who just cuts welfare programs leaving people high and dry and refuse to do little more except talk about tax cuts to social programs will get no votes from me.
I don't like fraud in government or business and cannot stand the deregulation ideas or lack of oversight in either. If market forces worked as advertised all businesses would go out of business before doing damage. An industrial complex can leave million dollar cleanup bill of a waste dump before it is closed down. Defective products injure or kill people in decisions made by companies who hide their data if too unregulated. People in financial markets like Wall Street seem too oblivious to the long term in the short term drive for big profits even if their exploits put the economy in a precarious position. I have no problem with oversight in government either. I don't trust government or private enterprise to do the right thing, which is why I'm just not going to be a true free market person.
I don't believe in socialism outside of everything that is not working fine in private enterprise. I didn't think healthcare was working fine, except for too few people, which is why I don't have a problem with universal healthcare.
Also, I think it's a myth that the poor are the only ones on the take. The way I see it too many people right up the financial ladder are too often trying to get more pie than they actually worked for.
Quote: terapinedDems have more compassion for the poor...
Democrats define compassion by how many people are on food stamps. Republicans define compassion by how FEW people are on food stamps.
Quote: terapined
Freedom of choice.
Freedom to marry.
You have the same freedoms of choice and freedoms
to marry as everybody else has. What you mean is
you want your own special freedoms of choice and
marriage, the ones we have aren't good enough for
your special needs.
Too bad.
Quote: EvenBobYou have the same freedoms of choice and freedoms
to marry as everybody else has. What you mean is
you want your own special freedoms of choice and
marriage, the ones we have aren't good enough for
your special needs.
Too bad.
I think it makes more sense to bet on who will be the GOP nominee of 2016.
My bet is on Cruz. (I am not saying that I wish him getting the nomination, but I bet on him. )
Quote: EvenBobYou have the same freedoms of choice and freedoms
to marry as everybody else has. What you mean is
you want your own special freedoms of choice and
marriage, the ones we have aren't good enough for
your special needs.
That's one of the things that really irritates me about the so-called gay marriage movement. These people have successfully hijacked the language. And because their cohorts in the media complied, half the battle was already won. Take the term 'gay marriage'. In reality, 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron because 'marriage' is between a man and a woman, and talking about it is as nonsensical as talking about a 'round square'. Neither one exists.
Libs have also (shamelessly) used the word 'equality' to promote their agenda. According to them, if you oppose 'gay marriage', then you oppose equal rights.
Well, OK.....if they want to play that game, then I can say that if you oppose tax-rate equality (i.e., the flat tax) for all Americans, then you're a bigot who opposes equal rights. But libs don't like hearing that, now do they?
They've also done the same thing with immigration. When I was growing up, people who were here illegally were called "illegal aliens". But Dems didn't like that term because it made it harder for them to push their agenda. So they and the biased media got rid of that term and started saying "illegal immigrants" instead. Now they prefer to call them "undocumented workers". So we've gone from "illegal aliens" to "undocumented workers". Stupidity at its finest.
Quote: pokerfaceMy bet is on Cruz. (I am not saying that I wish him getting the nomination, but I bet on him. )
Love Ted Cruz. I hope he runs because I'd love to see him spank Christie in the primary debates. But I have to say that Christie is probably the favorite (at this point, at least) to win the nomination. Neither one would defeat the Democrat nominee though.
Quote: Beethoven9thWell, OK.....if they want to play that game, then I can say that if you oppose tax-rate equality (i.e., the flat tax) for all Americans, then you're a bigot who opposes equal rights. But libs don't like hearing that, now do they?
.
If you get kicked out of a business tonight because of ranting about flat taxes, there's little you can do about it.
But when you walk in a business and you are a certain "race" and "gender" those are things you ARE. If you are kicked out for either of those things you can file a discrimination suit because you are protected.
While people may dispute that "sexual preference" is just a choice, it is becoming on par with "race" and "gender". It is not the same as different beliefs.
Yes, your example is ethically dissimilar and just plain wrong.
Quote: rxwineIf you get kicked out of a business tonight because of ranting about flat taxes, there's little you can do about it...
Mr. Tangent strikes again. Nothing in your reply is about gay marriage (which is what I was talking about). *sigh*
Ted Cruz is a natural born Canadian. He's not qualified to become President. It's in the Constitution.Quote: pokerfaceI think it makes more sense to bet on who will be the GOP nominee of 2016.
My bet is on Cruz. (I am not saying that I wish him getting the nomination, but I bet on him. )
Quote: Beethoven9thThat's one of the things that really irritates me about the so-called gay marriage movement. These people have successfully hijacked the language. And because their cohorts in the media complied, half the battle was already won. Take the term 'gay marriage'. In reality, 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron because 'marriage' is between a man and a woman, and talking about it is as nonsensical as talking about a 'round square'. Neither one exists.
Of course gay marriage exists. The government defines marriage for tax purposes. Gay people define it as a committed relationships with the same rights that opposite-sex couples have, including the rights to collect government benefits and to make decisions on the your partner's behalf. So take the word "marriage" out of all government documents and call it "union".
Quote:Libs have also (shamelessly) used the word 'equality' to promote their agenda. According to them, if you oppose 'gay marriage', then you oppose equal rights.
I'll play. You do. What does the word "marriage" mean to you? What special meaning does the word have to you? Why do you have the stigmatism to define marriage necessarily as between a man and woman? The government uses the words to bequeath you rights, including significant tax benefits. So of course if you oppose "gay marriage", your opposing the rights of gay couples to collect their benefits, and you therefore oppose equal rights.
Quote:Well, OK.....if they want to play that game, then I can say that if you oppose tax-rate equality (i.e., the flat tax) for all Americans, then you're a bigot who opposes equal rights. But libs don't like hearing that, now do they?
That sounds like a good policy to me. Take away all benefits that married couples have and just tax everyone as individuals with their own income.
Quote:They've also done the same thing with immigration. When I was growing up, people who were here illegally were called "illegal aliens". But Dems didn't like that term because it made it harder for them to push their agenda. So they and the biased media got rid of that term and started saying "illegal immigrants" instead. Now they prefer to call them "undocumented workers". So we've gone from "illegal aliens" to "undocumented workers". Stupidity at its finest.
"undocumented workers" <> "illegal immigrants".
Nope, not unless you change the definition of the word 'marriage'.....which is completely ridiculous. For example, blacks didn't idiotically want to change the definition of 'white' to include blacks. Women didn't idiotically want to change the definition of the word 'man' to include women. They just wanted equal rights, and they got them. WITHOUT idiotically changing definitions of commonplace words.Quote: boymimboOf course gay marriage exists.
What does 'equality' mean to you? If you oppose "tax-rate equality", then you oppose the right of some Americans to be taxed at a rate equal to that of other Americans. Therefore, you oppose equal rights.Quote: boymimboI'll play. You do. What does the word "marriage" mean to you?...
Quote: s2dbakerTed Cruz is a natural born Canadian. He's not qualified to become President. It's in the Constitution.
President Obama is, no matter where he was born, a United States citizen. The "birthers" were wrong.
Senator Cruz is, no matter where he was born, a United States citizen. The new "birthers" are just as wrong.
They were both "naturally born" citizens because they were born of a U. S. citizen.
It was a distraction tactic by a small but vocal majority in the President's election; it will be the same in this one should folks like s2dbaker insist on it.
In the end, it will mean nothing...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/did-chris-christie-just-try-to-knife-an-ally/
The article is about Christie's effort to replace NJ GOP Senate leadership after the election but this particular line stood out to me.
Christie got 60 percent of the vote but it didn't translate into any more seats in the state senate. Why not?
Quote: RonC"Despite Christie’s 60 percent showing Tuesday, Republicans didn’t make up any ground in the state Senate."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/did-chris-christie-just-try-to-knife-an-ally/
The article is about Christie's effort to replace NJ GOP Senate leadership after the election but this particular line stood out to me.
Christie got 60 percent of the vote but it didn't translate into any more seats in the state senate. Why not?
No coattails obviously, Dem voters trusted Christie and Christie earned that trust. All the other repubs did not earn the trust of the dems and so did not get votes from the dems like Christie did.
Current average odds from overseas bookies on US Presidential 2016 Race
Clinton is at 5/2 to 9/4
Rubio 9/1
Christie 10/1
Cruz 33/1
Quote: RonC"Despite Christie’s 60 percent showing Tuesday, Republicans didn’t make up any ground in the state Senate."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/did-chris-christie-just-try-to-knife-an-ally/
The article is about Christie's effort to replace NJ GOP Senate leadership after the election but this particular line stood out to me.
Christie got 60 percent of the vote but it didn't translate into any more seats in the state senate. Why not?
Quote: terapinedNo coattails obviously, Dem voters trusted Christie and Christie earned that trust. All the other repubs did not earn the trust of the dems and so did not get votes from the dems like Christie did.
Current average odds from overseas bookies on US Presidential 2016 Race
Clinton is at 5/2 to 9/4
Rubio 9/1
Christie 10/1
Cruz 33/1
"No coattails obviously, Dem voters trusted Christie and Christie earned that trust."--and that is great in the case of a weak Democrat candidate (who was running against Christie, anyway?). In the case of a strong Democrat--Clinton perhaps--not only does the candidate who is "the most trusted Republican among Democrats" lose, the party also loses seats in the House/Senate because the candidate is not a strong draw to the party.
I'm not saying that a Republican other than Christie can win...but I am saying that the Republicans will lose if Christie is the nominee. Further, I think they will lose ground in the House and Senate if he is the candidate. Christie is the perfect candidate for the Democrats to "fear" and the media to support.
Conversely, if the Republican nominee is a true conservative, they may also lose the election. The difference is that the conservatives will not lose as much ground in Congress in that case.
I think the nation can elect a conservative Republican. It'll be an upset, of course, but it can be done. It will take a solid candidate, a good message, and a groundswell of support from people who know the only way the government can be everything to everyone is to take everything from everyone. Romney was wrong about 47%; they aren't automatic votes. Many he lumped in that number are solid citizens that just don't make enough money to pay taxes at this point. Don't think the Dems just get 47% without working for it...
Senator Cruz' father is a birther. Since Senator Cruz' Cuban father knows that his son was born in Canada, I wonder if he thinks that his son is qualified under the constitution to become President of the United States of America.Quote: RonCThe "birthers" were wrong.
Senator Cruz is, no matter where he was born, a United States citizen.
The Republicans will never have a 'good message' as long as YouTube exists. In the primary, each Republican candidate has to go fruitloops to the right to win support from their fruitloops base even if that candidate is a Massachusetts Moderate. When it's time to run in the general, the anti-choice, anti-immigration, anti-union, anti-government YouTube clips will be there to remind the electorate that the Republicans hate America in general and the voters specifically.Quote: RonCI think the nation can elect a conservative Republican. It'll be an upset, of course, but it can be done. It will take a solid candidate, a good message
Until Republicans can find a way to get rid of Google, nationally, they are lost.
Quote: RonC
I think the nation can elect a conservative Republican. It'll be an upset, of course, but it can be done. It will take a solid candidate, a good message, and a groundswell of support from people who know the only way the government can be everything to everyone is to take everything from everyone. Romney was wrong about 47%; they aren't automatic votes. Many he lumped in that number are solid citizens that just don't make enough money to pay taxes at this point. Don't think the Dems just get 47% without working for it...
With the way the electoral college is setup and the changing demographics of the nation, how does a repub get to 270 to win?
Many battleground states are no longer going to be battleground states.
Take Florida, where I live. Huge battleground state. Demographics are changing here. We got 2 more electoral votes due to 2010 census. That's huge, 27 to 29 electoral votes. We got 2 more votes because Hispanic population growing in this state. With changing demographics, I really no longer see Florida as a battleground state. Without Florida, pretty tough , maybe impossible for a Repub to get to 270.
I went to the Ryan rally here in Oldsmar during last Presidential election just as a spectator, People at the rally were really disappointed in the turnout because Obama held a rally the week before in nearby St Pete, massive crowd for that rally.
Quote: terapinedWith the way the electoral college is setup and the changing demographics of the nation, how does a repub get to 270 to win?
Many battleground states are no longer going to be battleground states.
Take Florida, where I live. Huge battleground state. Demographics are changing here. We got 2 more electoral votes due to 2010 census. That's huge, 27 to 29 electoral votes. We got 2 more votes because Hispanic population growing in this state. With changing demographics, I really no longer see Florida as a battleground state. Without Florida, pretty tough , maybe impossible for a Repub to get to 270.
I went to the Ryan rally here in Oldsmar during last Presidential election just as a spectator, People at the rally were really disappointed in the turnout because Obama held a rally the week before in nearby St Pete, massive crowd for that rally.
I guess the message is that we should just roll up our tents and go home. That would be wrong. The states will change from one side to another over time. Florida isn't turning Democrat for the first time. 270 seems impossible if you don't think changes are possible. It may be tough, but it isn't impossible.
The demographic trends at the moment favour a continued Democratic stronghold on the presidency. Republican backers need to look at those demographics for signs of fundamental voting shifts in order to find a betting proposition.
Quote: RonCI guess the message is that we should just roll up our tents and go home. That would be wrong. The states will change from one side to another over time. Florida isn't turning Democrat for the first time. 270 seems impossible if you don't think changes are possible. It may be tough, but it isn't impossible.
Florida can easily be put back into play by the repubs by implementing Immigration reform. Its a huge issue here in Florida. Our Senator, Marco Rubio saw the light and proposed immigration reform but got so much grief from the tea party that he's now against his own proposal. lol . Unless the Repub presidential candidate can attract Hispanics in larger numbers then Romney(this is regarding a lot of states, not just Florida), I see no way to 270 for the repubs.
Quote: terapinedFlorida can easily be put back into play by the repubs by implementing Immigration reform. Its a huge issue here in Florida. Our Senator, Marco Rubio saw the light and proposed immigration reform but got so much grief from the tea party that he's now against his own proposal. lol . Unless the Repub presidential candidate can attract Hispanics in larger numbers then Romney(this is regarding a lot of states, not just Florida), I see no way to 270 for the repubs.
Immigration reform is a must but it needs to be significantly different than Reagan's amnesty--it needs to be something that sustains immigration control in the future. It can't just be another giveaway program. I do think it is important for the Republican candidate to put together a solid platform that includes sensible reforms that everyone can accept.
One key thing for the Republican candidate is to stay away from abortion and gay marriage as defining issues. Being against both of them is not the same as letting your candidacy be defined by them. If the media and the opponent is allowed to dwell on those issues, the candidate can't fully present the really important issues. One issue voters may be lost, but more can be won by keeping focus on those larger issues.
Quote: Beethoven9thAgain, I'm only using YOUR own defense. ;)
But seriously, I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand. For example, you can allow (or not allow) people into your private residence for WHATEVER REASON YOU WANT.
Yes, that means if Buzzard doesn't feel like allowing, say, gay people (or straight people!) into his home, then he has every right to do so.
My home is not a restaurant or place of business. DUH What next, whites only signs on the water fountains ?
Dems have a lock on the gay vote.Quote: s2dbakerIn the primary, each Republican candidate has to go fruitloops to the right to win support from their fruitloops base...
Quote: terapinedWith the way the electoral college is setup and the changing demographics of the nation, how does a repub get to 270 to win?
Many battleground states are no longer going to be battleground states
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with terapined. Don't get me wrong, I would be more than happy to eat a pile of crow in front of RonC on this one, but unless there's a seismic shift in American politics, the Republicans—and as a result, the USA—are done.Quote: RonCThe states will change from one side to another over time. Florida isn't turning Democrat for the first time. 270 seems impossible if you don't think changes are possible. It may be tough, but it isn't impossible.
I'd also love to be wrong because I really do hate agreeing with terapined...hehehe ;)
(J/K, bro...haha)
Once again, I agree with terapined. This is a disturbing trend. ;)Quote: terapinedUnless the Repub presidential candidate can attract Hispanics in larger numbers then Romney(this is regarding a lot of states, not just Florida), I see no way to 270 for the repubs.
Quote: BuzzardMy home is not a restaurant or place of business. DUH What next, whites only signs on the water fountains ?
You really need to look up the word 'private' in the term "private business". For example, casinos are private businesses, yet they can bar players FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY WANT. But according to your logic, 86'ing a black guy is racist. *facepalm*
Otherwise the Tea Party will always be the outlier. I understand that a minority of people have strong feelings on the direction of the country.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou really need to look up the word 'private' in the term "private business". For example, casinos are private businesses, yet they can bar players FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY WANT. But according to your logic, 86'ing a black guy is racist. *facepalm*
The question was about not serving a black man in a restaurant and Rand Paul said the owner could refuse as freedom of spech. Dance around it all you want.
n the 1970s, The Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1972 called for "the preferential employment of disabled veterans and veterans of the Vietnam era ... who are otherwise qualified." The act was amended a year later to require federal agencies and contractors to take affirmative action in employment and promotion for people with disabilities. These changes underscored the use of affirmative action as a balancing of competitive interests. Affirmative action was understood to be the creation of opportunities to compete and not an assurance of outcome or success.
Are you against Affirmative action programs for vets ?? Think careful before answering. Many vets are black !
LOL...actually you're the one dancing. Casinos and restaurants are both private businesses.Quote: BuzzardThe question was about not serving a black man in a restaurant and Rand Paul said the owner could refuse as freedom of spech. Dance around it all you want.
So I'll ask again: Are casinos racist if they 86 a black man? Or should they simply not be allowed to 86 blacks and other minorities?
You're free to dance around this question all you want. ;)
A casino can 86 a black man if the reason is other than he is black.
Do you know of any casino that has done so .
Can you post a picture. Were you that guy standing next to George Wallace in the doorway ?
Back to the original question
Can a restaurant owner refuse to serve a black man as freedom of speech ?
Quote: Buzzard" LOL...actually you're the one dancing. Casinos and restaurants are both private businesses."
A casino can 86 a black man if the reason is other than he is black.
Do you know of any casino that has done so .
Um...that's my entire point. They don't have to give an official reason for 86'ing ANYONE, but in theory, a casino can 86 a black man...or a brown man...or a white man...or a green man...or a Martian...or anyone else...for whatever reason they want. And that's all Rand Paul is saying. He believes that restaurants (like casinos) should be able to 86 ANYONE for whatever reason they want. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. If he's racist, then so are casinos.
Quote: Beethoven9thUm...that's my entire point. They don't have to give an official reason for 86'ing ANYONE, but in theory, a casino can 86 a black man...or a brown man...or a white man...or a green man...or a Martian...or anyone else...for whatever reason they want. And that's all Rand Paul is saying. He believes that restaurants (like casinos) should be able to 86 ANYONE for whatever reason they want. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. If he's racist, then so are casinos.
Not taking sides, just curious. Have casinos discriminated lately. I understand back in the Rat Pack days, a lot of discrimination. I heard that's why the Rat Pack were big on partying at the Moulin Rouge casino while it was open because Sammy got respect there.
Anyway, if casinos can discriminate and give no reason, have they been accused of this recently?
I think it kind of sucks that they can 86 anyone with no reason.
Wouldn't it be bad for business if somebody gets 86'd and claims discrimination and casino remains silent because they can?
Do they actually do this?
Quote: Beethoven9thUm...that's my entire point. They don't have to give an official reason for 86'ing ANYONE, but in theory, a casino can 86 a black man...or a brown man...or a white man...or a green man...or a Martian...or anyone else...for whatever reason they want. And that's all Rand Paul is saying. He believes that restaurants (like casinos) should be able to 86 ANYONE for whatever reason they want. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. If he's racist, then so are casinos.
A restaurant can refuse service to anyone, just like a casino or any other business can. You just cannot come out and say it is because they are black, gay,etc. You have to hide your bigotry to keep from being sued.
Quote: terapinedNot taking sides, just curious. Have casinos discriminated lately. I understand back in the Rat Pack days, a lot of discrimination. I heard that's why the Rat Pack were big on partying at the Moulin Rouge casino while it was open because Sammy got respect there.
Anyway, if casinos can discriminate and give no reason, have they been accused of this recently?
I think it kind of sucks that they can 86 anyone with no reason.
Wouldn't it be bad for business if somebody gets 86'd and claims discrimination and casino remains silent because they can?
Do they actually do this?
In Pittsburgh some black group is trying to shake Rivers down by claiming this. Does it happen? I doubt it happens much.
I do know a guy who tried to get service in a Subway where an all-black crew ignored him completely so it might happen in some cases.
Oh yes, lots of discrimination back then. These days? Probably very little. Don't have any hard numbers at my fingertips though.Quote: terapinedNot taking sides, just curious. Have casinos discriminated lately. I understand back in the Rat Pack days, a lot of discrimination. I heard that's why the Rat Pack were big on partying at the Moulin Rouge casino while it was open because Sammy got respect there.
Anyway, if casinos can discriminate and give no reason, have they been accused of this recently?
I think it kind of sucks that they can 86 anyone with no reason.
That's part of Paul's point. Restaurants shouldn't have to worry about being sued, and I happen to agree. Today, with the internet & social networking, all a victim of racism has to do is write about their experience on the Net, and the restaurant will suffer dearly. There's no need in 2013 to go clogging up the court system with more frivolous lawsuits.Quote: CS94A restaurant can refuse service to anyone, just like a casino or any other business can. You just cannot come out and say it is because they are black, gay,etc. You have to hide your bigotry to keep from being sued.
Hmm...so you're claiming that this gay guy is "much like me"?Quote: rxwineThis guy is much like you. [NOTE: link is to a gay Republican's website]
You do know that other members have been suspended for making gay accusations, right?
Quote: Beethoven9thHmm...so you're claiming that this gay guy is "much like me"?Quote: rxwineThis guy is much like you. [NOTE: link is to a gay Republican's website]
You do know that other members have been suspended for making gay accusations, right?
If moderators want to make the call that "much like" refers to the being gay part, they can do so, if that's the way they want to see it.
