Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

No H8 Campaign

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 7:14:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The McCains are probably one of the most well-known Republican families of today (aside from the Bush's) so it's pretty cool that Cindy McCain stepped up and joined the No H8 Campaign, whose goals are to overturn Prop 8 in California and obviously fight for gay marriage in general. John's daughter Meghan has been an advocate for gay marriage, but it means a lot for Cindy, John's wife and also someone from an older generation to take a stand. Do you think this will have an impact on the Conservatives and how so? I happen to know that JM is also gay-friendly though obviously couldn't be open about it (regarding gay marriage) for the sake of his campaign. I'm hoping that social progression can trump fear and that gays get equal rights; I believe that being Conservative is fine if it's for economic reasons lol.

http://nymag.com...
President of DDO
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 9:19:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The entire McCain family could join and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

Opposition to gay marriage is generally born out of ignorant bigotry and self-aggrandizing control over a minority population. Thee is no logic or rationale behind their ignorance, and their minds will not be changed if Ronald Reagan himself was gay.

And I'm not talking about those libertarians who want government out of marriage, I have a whole different set of issues with that. No, I'm talking about the quasi-authoritarian conservatives who think that their beliefs constitute a legitimate basis for enslaving a minority population to their whims. No campaign will change that, the government needs to discredit their beliefs as irrelevant and protect the belief that all men and women are created equal and are entitled to the same rights.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 9:29:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 9:19:02 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
The entire McCain family could join and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

Opposition to gay marriage is generally born out of ignorant bigotry and self-aggrandizing control over a minority population. Thee is no logic or rationale behind their ignorance, and their minds will not be changed if Ronald Reagan himself was gay.

And I'm not talking about those libertarians who want government out of marriage, I have a whole different set of issues with that. No, I'm talking about the quasi-authoritarian conservatives who think that their beliefs constitute a legitimate basis for enslaving a minority population to their whims. No campaign will change that, the government needs to discredit their beliefs as irrelevant and protect the belief that all men and women are created equal and are entitled to the same rights.

Such a Dipper mentality.

I think this is a good move on the account of the McCains, as it shows that those within the conservative movement aren't being hypocritical when they say they want to uphold the Constitution.

And unlike my social democratic friend here, I don't believe that the government needs to actively go about calling their ideas irrelevant, because one thing is for sure - I wouldn't want the same done to me, and if it were, I'd be pretty PO'd. When you're facing a population as hostile to this idea as some of the US is, you need to be practical and say, "this is going to take awhile to change, so I'll take baby steps." And the mentality will change eventually. I mean, do you think support for same-sex marriage is the same as it was say, 20 years ago? It was probably worse.

Ideologically speaking, it is abhorent to think about - but no government survived long on pure ideology.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 10:21:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 9:29:09 AM, Volkov wrote:
Such a Dipper mentality.

I think this is a good move on the account of the McCains, as it shows that those within the conservative movement aren't being hypocritical when they say they want to uphold the Constitution.

And unlike my social democratic friend here, I don't believe that the government needs to actively go about calling their ideas irrelevant, because one thing is for sure - I wouldn't want the same done to me, and if it were, I'd be pretty PO'd. When you're facing a population as hostile to this idea as some of the US is, you need to be practical and say, "this is going to take awhile to change, so I'll take baby steps." And the mentality will change eventually. I mean, do you think support for same-sex marriage is the same as it was say, 20 years ago? It was probably worse.

Ideologically speaking, it is abhorent to think about - but no government survived long on pure ideology.

So the government should bow down to the lunatic fringe in the country? A government has no obligation to take its orders from every citizen. Certainly it has to listen, but we are not an uber-populist democracy; we elect (hopefully) educated officials to discern from the wackos from the normals. These people are wackos.

When making decisions about a minority that only affects the minority, only the minority should be consulted. As much noise as the far-right makes, they have failed to prove that gay marriage will change any aspect of their life.

The whole 'baby steps' thing is BS. It is merely a way of legitimizing the bigots who oppose gay marriage. It reads as "You're both right." When, in fact, that is just not the case. Why should gays in America have to wait any longer? Haven't they waited long enough? By allowing the religious right in America to dictate the lives of everyone else, not only is the barrier between church and state being further eroded, but it establishes a precedent that the majority may define the lives of the minority. That is unacceptable and that is the exact thing America was founded to prevent.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 10:32:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 10:21:01 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:

So the government should bow down to the lunatic fringe in the country? A government has no obligation to take its orders from every citizen. Certainly it has to listen, but we are not an uber-populist democracy; we elect (hopefully) educated officials to discern from the wackos from the normals. These people are wackos.

When making decisions about a minority that only affects the minority, only the minority should be consulted. As much noise as the far-right makes, they have failed to prove that gay marriage will change any aspect of their life.

The whole 'baby steps' thing is BS. It is merely a way of legitimizing the bigots who oppose gay marriage. It reads as "You're both right." When, in fact, that is just not the case. Why should gays in America have to wait any longer? Haven't they waited long enough? By allowing the religious right in America to dictate the lives of everyone else, not only is the barrier between church and state being further eroded, but it establishes a precedent that the majority may define the lives of the minority. That is unacceptable and that is the exact thing America was founded to prevent.

I agree, but the law is an important concept for governing, and how are you to protect the rights of gays?? Outside of the law?

No, you have to change the laws. And, in a democracy,That requires people. Granted not all the people, just their reps., but reps with an interest in accurately reflecting the will of those people.

I would say that perhaps the easiest way of going about getting gays equal 'marriage' rights would be to clear up that the state can only recognize Unions that are Civil in nature, not religious, thus marriages become known as Civil Unions.

But perhaps, though that's most consistent, it's unrealistic?

Barring that however, the only way things will change is when people's positions change.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 11:17:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Matt sums up my position - a democracy requires people, and if the majority don't agree, and are forced to change, you'll find your democracy has no people supporting it.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 11:18:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 10:32:09 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I agree, but the law is an important concept for governing, and how are you to protect the rights of gays?? Outside of the law?

No, you have to change the laws. And, in a democracy,That requires people. Granted not all the people, just their reps., but reps with an interest in accurately reflecting the will of those people.

I would say that perhaps the easiest way of going about getting gays equal 'marriage' rights would be to clear up that the state can only recognize Unions that are Civil in nature, not religious, thus marriages become known as Civil Unions.

But perhaps, though that's most consistent, it's unrealistic?

Barring that however, the only way things will change is when people's positions change.

Well there's a few problems with your reasoning.

First off, a modern-day democracies never pretends to reflect the literal will of the people. Our modern societies are middle-of-the-road systems that pertain to listen to the people, but certainly don't pretend to be at their beck and call.

But let's assume that they should do exactly as the public wants. How do we gauge public opinion? Research polls? Do you not think it hinders the ability of a lawmaker to do his or her job if they are constantly changing their opinion based on the polling numbers du jour? Furthermore, how does each individual lawmaker know how their state feels? Polls are generally only done at the nation-wide level.

Perhaps most importantly, lawmakers promise to uphold the fundamentals that the country was based on, primary the rights to equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While I could go on about how often these are ignored, I think any law that establishes the inherent equality of the American people must be supported, regardless of how unpopular it is.

But let's go back to your point about public opinion. Why do people hate gay marriage so much? Could it have something to do with the endless anti-gay rhetoric that propagates itself in not only the media, but the American congress? Absolutely.

Sometimes the people can't be trusted to form sober, rational opinions. Now that is hardly an endorsement for authoritarianism, but rather some things must be taken into account;

How much deceit is being spread, by whom, and who will the decision affect. I can hardly expect the average voter to support gay marriage if they believe their church group's nonesense about gays wanting to teach their 6 year old the explicit details of sex in the classroom. If that is not true, then why should that lie have any place in the debate? Because lawmakers have access to the facts from both sides of the debate, they should be given the authority to make the decision.

It would be like asking a jury to render a verdict after they've been taken out for a steak dinner by the defense attorney. In that case, an impartial group must make the decision
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 2:08:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 11:18:48 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:

I think you mostly misunderstood my point.

I do think that Gays rights should not be denied at the whim of a majority. I also happen to think that the constitution as it currently stands, would not support any Federal discrimination upon them.

However, being that they aren't specifically protected by the constitution, the Fed. Govt. doesn't currently have the power to force the states to be non-discriminatory.

To fix this, I would support adding Gender and Sexual Preference to the civil rights Amendment/s to protect gays and transgendered people from such discrimination, but THAT would take quite a few people; NAMELY Representatives who have an interest in representing their constituents.

I am not a proponent of Direct Democracy.

I hate the masses, and hate that due to their general ridiculousness Democracy can still act like Tyranny

However LAW is nothing if it is not consistent, and The Federal government; due to the 10th amendment, is limited in it's action (and I believe rightfully so) to that which is spelled out in the Constitution. They cannot enforce things on the states, unless that particular power is theirs thanks to the Constitution.

Though I am not for Direct Democracy, I am in support of ours, and I would not see it's principles so easily tossed to support any cause, even if it's one I agree with.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 2:16:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
MKurtz,

I also am not in favor of Reps. attempting to vote in keeping with their constituents, I would want them to vote in keeping with Ethics and reason.

I simply pointed out that Reps do have the incentive to vote in keeping with their constituents.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:43:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No no, I understand. I was never trying to suggest that you were against gay marriage.

I know where you're coming from, and I just happen to believe that the federal government must take a stance on it, if nothing else. Any reasonable state government should also allow same-sex marriage immediately.

And, fun fact, I am in favour of direct democracy. That is, I think citizens should have the ability to participate more actively in the democratic process, but not that they should have the final say. Rather, allowing citizens to propose laws to be debate (not necessarily passed) in government allows for the consideration of things that wouldn't normally enter into the conversation.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:45:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 5:43:15 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:

I know where you're coming from, and I just happen to believe that the federal government must take a stance on it

Do you mean for the Administration to cease unconstitutional powers...

or the legislature?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:47:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 9:19:02 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
The entire McCain family could join and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

Opposition to gay marriage is generally born out of ignorant bigotry and self-aggrandizing control over a minority population. Thee is no logic or rationale behind their ignorance, and their minds will not be changed if Ronald Reagan himself was gay.

And I'm not talking about those libertarians who want government out of marriage, I have a whole different set of issues with that. No, I'm talking about the quasi-authoritarian conservatives who think that their beliefs constitute a legitimate basis for enslaving a minority population to their whims. No campaign will change that, the government needs to discredit their beliefs as irrelevant and protect the belief that all men and women are created equal and are entitled to the same rights.

I take offense to this
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:56:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 5:47:23 PM, Kahvan wrote:

I take offense to this

I'm sorry, but,

BAH!

Tell him off then and say why he's wrong.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 6:01:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 9:19:02 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
The entire McCain family could join and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

Opposition to gay marriage is generally born out of ignorant bigotry and self-aggrandizing control over a minority population. Thee is no logic or rationale behind their ignorance, and their minds will not be changed if Ronald Reagan himself was gay.

And I'm not talking about those libertarians who want government out of marriage, I have a whole different set of issues with that. No, I'm talking about the quasi-authoritarian conservatives who think that their beliefs constitute a legitimate basis for enslaving a minority population to their whims. No campaign will change that, the government needs to discredit their beliefs as irrelevant and protect the belief that all men and women are created equal and are entitled to the same rights.

I am opposed to gay marriage. But I would not say that it is born of ignorant bigotry.

My stance o gay marriage is the following....

Physical intimacy is only permissible when a couple has been married. Having said this it is my firm belief that marriage is between a man and a woman OR a male or female.

With this as my stance on marriage I have no problem if you have those feelings. But marriage is between a guy and gal and so you cant be married to a person of the same gender
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 6:06:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 9:19:02 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:

Opposition to gay marriage is generally born out of ignorant bigotry and self-aggrandizing control over a minority population. There is no logic or rationale behind their ignorance

In order to address MK's Generalizations I think there's some things you'd need to address.

At 1/21/2010 6:01:34 PM, Kahvan wrote:
My stance o gay marriage is the following....

Physical intimacy is only permissible when a couple has been married.
Why? For what Reason would you have the law enforce that upon others

Having said this it is my firm belief that marriage is between a man and a woman OR a male or female.
Why?

With this as my stance on marriage I have no problem if you have those feelings. But marriage is between a guy and gal and so you cant be married to a person of the same gender

Why? For what Reason would you have the law enforce that upon others
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 6:28:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've decided that this decision should be left to the individual states to decide for whatever reason with no federal influence. And America is not a democracy.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 6:34:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 6:28:12 PM, mongoose wrote:
I've decided that this decision should be left to the individual states to decide for whatever reason with no federal influence. And America is not a democracy.

Yes, yes, we know - its a republic.

However, do you think it is OK for some states to have marriage, yet other states either not have it, but refuse to even recognize marriages performed in other states? I mean, if the federal government is supposed to be an overriding authority designed to keep the states together as well as provide the same rights across the country, it would be failing to do its job if this occurs.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 6:34:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 6:28:12 PM, mongoose wrote:
I've decided that this decision should be left to the individual states to decide for whatever reason with no federal influence. And America is not a democracy.

It's a kind of democracy.

Power is ultimately doled out by the people.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 6:40:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 6:01:34 PM, Kahvan wrote:

Physical intimacy is only permissible when a couple has been married.

So, holding hands is off-limits for non-married couples?

Having said this it is my firm belief that marriage is between a man and a woman OR a male or female.

Uh, pretty big non sequitiur.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 6:57:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 6:34:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/21/2010 6:28:12 PM, mongoose wrote:
I've decided that this decision should be left to the individual states to decide for whatever reason with no federal influence. And America is not a democracy.

Yes, yes, we know - its a republic.

However, do you think it is OK for some states to have marriage, yet other states either not have it, but refuse to even recognize marriages performed in other states?

Why would they recognize it? It's not like it affects them.

I mean, if the federal government is supposed to be an overriding authority designed to keep the states together as well as provide the same rights across the country, it would be failing to do its job if this occurs.

Yet that is not the feds job. Their job is mostly foreign policy. I'm PRO-secession.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 7:00:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 6:57:33 PM, mongoose wrote:
I'm PRO-secession.

Who in their right mind isn't?

Amendment 10 clearly is :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 7:03:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 6:57:33 PM, mongoose wrote:
Why would they recognize it? It's not like it affects them.

Recognition of marriages in other states means that they can tax those people just the same as those in their state. Plus, they're usually bundled up with other benefits.

Yet that is not the feds job. Their job is mostly foreign policy. I'm PRO-secession.

That is your opinion. I'm pro-federalism, but I use the actual definition of federal government, which is the highest authority in the land, but countered by regional authorities and rights. What you're talking about is essentially an UN with teeth.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 7:04:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 7:00:52 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/21/2010 6:57:33 PM, mongoose wrote:
I'm PRO-secession.

Who in their right mind isn't?

Amendment 10 clearly is :)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Woot.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
GhostWriter
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 6:57:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've noticed that when liberals defend gay marriage, they always go heavy on the "why and why not" and the "It's not fair!" and don't forget the "who are you to say" 's.

Conservative father: "Mindy, you aren't making the right decision here!"

Mindy: "You cannot say who I love, and who I don't love"

Conservative father: "But mindy, its a dog!"

Mindy: "Who are you to say that our love isn't real just because he's not human? HUH!?! HUH!? It's not fair! Why can't you just accept our love for what it is?!"

Conservative father: "Uh, well, is it you hope to prove by going on human/animal right parades?"

Mindy: "You really don't get it do you? If we do this, people like us will finally be recognized and heard for once! That's the whole purpose for all of this! Oh and not to mention my undying love for sparky!"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 7:02:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 6:57:31 PM, GhostWriter wrote:
I've noticed that when liberals defend gay marriage, they always go heavy on the "why and why not" and the "It's not fair!" and don't forget the "who are you to say" 's.

I've noticed when conservatives attack gay marriage, they always go heavy on the "its an affront to God!" and the "you're committing sodomy!" and don't forget the "gays are disgusting" 's.

In other words, stfu.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 7:26:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 7:02:23 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/24/2010 6:57:31 PM, GhostWriter wrote:
I've noticed that when liberals defend gay marriage, they always go heavy on the "why and why not" and the "It's not fair!" and don't forget the "who are you to say" 's.

I've noticed when conservatives attack gay marriage, they always go heavy on the "its an affront to God!" and the "you're committing sodomy!" and don't forget the "gays are disgusting" 's.

In other words, stfu.

I don't use those arguments when I choose not to support gay marriage. But I think the same thing when I hear those stupid arguments (on either side, a stupid argument is a stupid argument), lol.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 9:09:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've noticed when conservatives attack gay marriage, they always go heavy on the "its an affront to God!" and the "you're committing sodomy!" and don't forget the "gays are disgusting" 's.

In other words, stfu.

Hmm... What I've noticed, is that when liberals don't like being told they're wrong, they resort to insults such as "stfu", to back a point, or to try an intimidate their opponent. :)
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 9:17:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 9:09:45 PM, philosphical wrote:
Hmm... What I've noticed, is that when liberals don't like being told they're wrong, they resort to insults such as "stfu", to back a point, or to try an intimidate their opponent. :)

"Stfu" isn't an insult - its a request. It also wasn't to back a point - it was to tell him to stfu. Oh, and if you think people can truly intimidate others through the internet, I think you need to re-evaluate some things.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2010 9:55:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2010 9:17:23 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/24/2010 9:09:45 PM, philosphical wrote:
Hmm... What I've noticed, is that when liberals don't like being told they're wrong, they resort to insults such as "stfu", to back a point, or to try an intimidate their opponent. :)

"Stfu" isn't an insult - its a request. It also wasn't to back a point -

An insultive request, however you put it. You used it because you didn't like what she said, and rather than professionally adressing her, you chose to act out of anger by saying that. Nothing wrong with, I'm just saying I've noticed a trend with lliberals in this area. :)

it was to tell him to stfu.

her :)

Oh, and if you think people can truly intimidate others through the internet, I think you need to re-evaluate some things.

Oh I never said it works. Notice the word try. Just a trait that liberals generally do when someone dis-agrees with them.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!