• comment on a post When Only the Brave Speak Out over 5 years ago

    These Alegre people remind me of the parents who feel that score shouldn't be kept at sporting events. It's ridiculous.

    Ok, first of all I need to take issue with the title of this "diary" - When Only the Brave Speak Out.

    You are not brave. It takes not one ounce of bravery to log onto the internet and make a post in total anonymity. Anyone can do that.

    You are not being censored. You are not being beaten back with a firehose. And for God's sake you are not being burned at the stake.

    What is happening to you is that your opinions are being challenged by other human beings who happen to have their own opinions and their own reasons for having those opinions.

    If you can't stand up to having your opinions challenged and questioned by others then you are not brave - you are the exact opposite of brave.

  • on a comment on Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues over 5 years ago

    You're giving the public way too much credit if you believe it will sink into the general consciousness. About 2% of Americans will even remember who gave the invocation a month after it happens, and of that 2%, 95% will be gay.

  • on a comment on Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues over 5 years ago

    Ok, I'll bite.

    Who gave the invocation for George W. Bush?
    Who gave it for Clinton?
    Who gave it To Bush, the first?

    If it's such a high profile, highly symoblic event, then you will have no problem coming up with the correct answer in a split second.

  • on a comment on Stop Hijacking LGBT Issues over 5 years ago

    1000% agree.

    It's a prayer. That's it. For the life of me I can't figure out why this is a big deal. Do I agree with Warren? Not at all. It's not like he'll be dictating policy.

    We cannot foster understanding among different groups by exclusion. If we want evangelicals to become more accepting of the LGBT community then we need to include them, not shun them.

    Maybe then they'll realize that these people aren't so bad after all.

  • comment on a post PA-Sen: Specter Leads Matthews By Just 3 Points over 5 years ago

    As a Pennsylvanian, I hope can find another candidate.

    Specter isn't wholly unlikeable and I'd have a hard time voting for Matthews.

  • Ahh, ok.

    I thought you were genuinely criticizing him and that you guys actually had a falling out, which would be unfortunate.

    Now that I know you guys are messing each other, I get it. Now I can appreciate the point.

  • comment on a post Research 2000 gets the "Zogby Award" 2008 over 5 years ago


    What was the point of this?

  • So you came to the conclusion that there is not one Republican that has your interests at heart after you voted for McCain and Palin?

    Would you have come to this same conclusion if McCain/Palin would have won?

    This is what I never understood about PUMAs. I understood being upset. I understood not voting for Obama. I did not understand voting for the very people who are actively working against the very ideas that you support. They are working actively against the person that you are. But somehow these PUMAS couldn't make this conclusion.

  • This is absolutely hilarious. This is comedy gold.

    Texas (So Cal) Darlin in our midst, once again!?

    I am shocked, and I mean shocked, you would have time to be hanging out here So Cal. Shouldn't you be out there somewhere tracking down Obama's birth certificate or possibly publishing the Whitey tape that Mr. Irrelevant Flowbie was pushing?

    What's it like being totally irrelevant?

  • comment on a post GA-Sen: Looks Like We Have A Run-Off over 5 years ago

    Barack can push the "olive branch" meme by simply pointing out how divisive Chambliss is.

  • comment on a post Yes for Obama! Yes for Prop 8! over 5 years ago

    This made the rec list with one recommendation?


  • on a comment on Are the PUMA's with us? over 5 years ago

    Yeah! I mean just look at how Bush treated McCain in 2000. Total respect and class!

  • on a comment on Are the PUMA's with us? over 5 years ago

    With all due respect to your position, it seems like you believe that Hillary was entitled to the nomination. Is that what you mean by not showing loyalty?

    After all, why in the world would voters need to feel obligated to one particular person within the party? The party itself is more important than any single individual and it deserves our loyalty. If voters preferred one person within the party over another I don't see how this is disloyal.

    Anyways, I fail to see how the MSM, Party elites, and the blogosphere conspired to trash Hillary. The MSM gave it both ways and that's a fact. Reverend Wright was the dominant smear during the whole primary for any candidate. The blogosphere? There were plenty of blogs that trashed each candidate. Hillary was not alone. Been to No Quarter recently?

    Anyways, when it comes down to it, individuals decided to vote for Obama under the system that has been in place for Democratic primaries. Individual voters are not automatons that vote based on how Donna Brazile tells us how. I realize that many Clinton supporters found/find Obama supporters to be automatons, but at that point I'd kindly ask you to remove your tinfoil hat.

  • comment on a post Here we are... 19 to go over 5 years ago

    Don't mind the roads in PA. It has nothing to do with who is in office because the roads have been terrible forever.

    PA has a bad freeze/thaw cycle that causes the roads to expand and crack. It would take fistfulls of billions to fix our roads.

    I believe Interstate 80 through PA was ranked the worst major highway in the United States.

  • on a comment on Obama: Get on board America over 5 years ago

    Of course. I bookmarked it.

    But thanks for essentially proving my point.


Advertise Blogads