As of now, 4 people don’t think I’m allowed to ask Jack a question. But, whenever they want to speak out against political correctness, I’m sure they reference the First Amendment. Constitutional touting hypocracy.
I read these comments a lot in the IJ and agree and disagree with people from all sides…that comment from Jack is maybe one of the most appalling that I have ever seen on these threads. Thing is, you cannot tell people like that anything, they have it embedded in their brain that what they say is gospel. There may be a Freudian reference as to why Jack is that opposed to gays…
November 8, 2013 at 5:14 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Absolutely, free speech. And because of it, you sound more like a Jack Ass.
Cap- if AR15’s killed as many people as AID’s they would be banned by now don’t you think? How many men a year are killed by AID’s that was casued by man to man sex? Why don’t we hear about the number of people killed by it worldwide any longer? You and many like you have bought the LIE.
Source required on your “AIDS was caused by man to man sex.” HIV came from a chimp according to, oh I don’t know, science. Did you know you can get it from just coming into contact with infected blood? Even heterosexual people can get it. Even sexually inactive people can get it. It sounds as though it is you who has bought a lie.
November 11, 2013 at 1:47 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Planet:
Nope. Getting it from coming into contact with blood is extremely unlikely, because the virus dies as soon as it hits air.
There were two primary ways it became wide spread:
One: Needles.
Two: Anal sex. Regardless of gender of recipient.
As an aside: A major contributing factor was that before we put in place regulations regarding blood transfusions, and we made it illegal for gays to donate blood, a huge chunk of gays with infected blood donated blood and made a widespread infection. I would say the “war” against gays with aids is well deserved, considering they only did that to show that heterosexual people could get it as well.
Aids occurrence rates, note the wording “The CDC reports that 63 percent of new HIV infections occur among MSM — the agency’s shorthand for “Men Who Have Sex With Men.”
“Much of this fear dates back to 1983, not long before the ban went into effect, when some patients being treated for hemophilia started displaying AIDS-related symptoms after receiving routine blood transfusions. It was a clear sign that HIV-positive donors were, knowingly or not, infecting the national blood supply”
(It was knowingly)
Every article out there has acknowledged that male to male sex has caused the infection of aids to go extremely widespread. But that’s just like, totally against gays right?
And the article about aids dying when it hits air.
“Whilst HIV may live for a short while outside of the body, HIV transmission has not been reported as a result of contact with spillages or small traces of blood, semen or other bodily fluids. This is partly because HIV dies quite quickly once exposed to the air, and also because spilled fluids would have to get into a person’s bloodstream to infect them.”
My father worked on the machines that would diagnose aids, and also worked on potential cures, much earlier in his career.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. He would come home complaining about the fact that aids died after it was exposed to air, and other complications when they were studying it.
November 11, 2013 at 3:33 pm
JACK says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Cap- i’m talking about NOW you idiot. How many were killed last year by MSM? How many? You got it, thousands! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
November 11, 2013 at 3:38 pm
JACK says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob- thanks for the facts but libtards are not interested in facts…..just feelings for them.
November 11, 2013 at 3:43 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob says:
“a huge chunk of gays with infected blood donated blood and made a widespread infection. I would say the “war” against gays with aids is well deserved, considering they only did that to show that heterosexual people could get it as well…”
“It was a clear sign that HIV-positive donors were, knowingly or not, infecting the national blood supply”
(It was knowingly)”
I am having a very hard time believing that there was a Big Gay Conspiracy to taint the blood supply to ‘show that heterosexual people get it as well.’ Please provide a source for these statements. Otherwise, I’m going to assume that you are making them up to get a rise out of people.
November 11, 2013 at 4:09 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jack,
The reason we don’t hear as much about it now as before is that we have an understanding of it. We know what it is, how it’s transmitted and how to prevent it. It’s not the mystery it once was. And with the new medications available, it seems (whether correctly or not) somewhat beatable. At least in the states.
World-wide, it’s a different story. In 2012, 2.3 million people were newly infected with HIV, and 1.6 million people died from AIDS. Over 200,000 of those people were/are under the age of 15.
And while you are correct that in the US, MSM is the group that is the most affected by HIV/AIDS; globally, there are more women than men infected. And the vast majority of them contracted it through heterosexual sex. Among young people aged 15-24, the HIV prevalence rate for young women is twice that of young men. It’s not just a ‘gay’ disease.
BS- your comment should state most infected instead of affected. We are all affected.
November 12, 2013 at 11:18 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jack,
BS said, “most affected”, not the only ones affected.
As a group they are most affected because they are the most infected and/or their friends and partners are more likely to be infected. Therefore, they are the most affected.
Go learn some reading comprehension.
November 12, 2013 at 2:09 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
BS:
I won’t be labeled as a tin foil hat person, while you agree with Libby and her comments about the war with Iraq, and Koch Brothers insanity.
I do NOT believe in conspiracies, I’m one of the only republicans on this site that is 100% conspiracy free. I’m also one of the only moderate republicans on this site. You democrats have just become so polarized you don’t see it. It is YOUR party that is either us or them mentality I might add. I know this because even though I’m an agnostic who experimented in youth, I have not once had a republican argue with me over it or state I’m not with them. However, when I said I was against certain aspects of the democrat party, I saw how team oriented you guys are when it comes to destruction and hate. Join the team, or be ridiculed and isolated is the mentality. Most my friends became republican when they were rape victims, had abortions, and then they saw how a republican opened their arms, integrated them into positive groups, and helped them through it, and then saw how the democrat kids didn’t even care. They would go “oh, that’s terrible” and then unless you acted 100% fun and happy in their little group events, and did fun and happy things with them, you were thrown out of the group, or ignored. They don’t want to come with you to a therapy session, or talk with you about it if you need it. They don’t want to ask you if you’re suffering about why God would let that happen to you, and then reaffirm your faith if you need it.
Now that I’m done on that front: My father studied this. He made the machines and methods that diagnosed it. And you’re just a 20 something on a journal site going by his “gut”. One of the things that pissed my father off is when this happened. Basically when aids happened, since it was primarily a needle and drugs disease, there was a time when people started getting it who didn’t use needles (from sex). Most were gays. If you recall, some people started labeling black gay men, because their occurrence rate was high as well. Black gays got mad because they were being labeled because they were black, more than because they were gay. Every other gay got mad that people would ever say they were more likely to get aids than a heterosexual couple. Considering we knew it was a blood disease, and people were already talking about anal sex being a major factor, you do the math on how many gays knew that their behavior made them more at risk for aids, and gave blood anyway. When I was having sex in my younger years, and was less knowledgeable, I specifically avoided giving blood when I had an “experimentation” phase. Any gay person who doesn’t, is selfish, and is a darn fool. And yet, currently we have gay sites everywhere saying to “fight for your right!” to donate blood. Even the testing methods that exist today can say you don’t have aids several years after you have it developing in your system and are able to transmit it to others. Gays know this. They made, and have continued to make it their mission to study up, and take advantage of public ignorance. They knew they were riskier, and plain out chose to give blood because they didn’t want to admit it. Again, I live in a liberal state. I have seen the behaviors here.
Here’s fact one: Gays were saying that aids was not a gay disease.
Fact two: Gays were happy when heterosexuals started getting AIDS outside of needles (through sex). If you were paying attention during the arguments, they gleefully used it as ammo in hate filled discussions stating “SEE!!! WE AREN’T MORE LIKELY TO GET IT JUST BECAUSE WE’RE GAY!!!”. It still goes on. I don’t live in Texas or a conservative state. I live in Washington. You saw one side of it. I saw the liberal side of it. See the link below showing that they are actively trying to make gay donor blood bans removed, because as they said it “heterosexual people with multiple partners are more at risk for aids and they can donate”. To them, they don’t care about the risk, they want people to get aids so that they can prove they are equal. Heterosexual sex has been proven to be considerably less risky than anal sex. Don’t give me the “anal couples have anal sex too!”. Yes. They do. And less than 10% of those couples have anal sex on a regular basis that even comes remotely close to gay males. Gay males consistently have more partners, as well as the increased risk of anal sex. And before you say not all gay people have anal sex: The majority do. This is why the occurrence rate of aids is so incredibly high in San Francisco as just one example.
Bob – I am sorry you had those experiences with Democrats in your youth. When I was still in school, I didn’t even know the difference between the parties. But being a Democrat does not make you an unfeeling person not willing to help another friend. Your whole perspective has been skewed by traumatic events in your past that make it impossible for you to be unbiased. No, Republican does not equal gay-hater or uncaring for sick & poor people, just as Democrat does not equal what you think it equals either.
People are people regardless of their party affiliation. There are good ones and bad ones. I’m sorry the only Democrats you have met have been the latter. But your experience is only a microcosm of the world. It might be beneficial if you sought some counsel for your anger issues with Democrats and others that don’t fall in line with your beliefs.
November 12, 2013 at 2:48 pm
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob, do you have any links to articles about gays deliberately tainting blood supply?
November 12, 2013 at 2:53 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob says: “I won’t be labeled as a tin foil hat person, while you agree with Libby and her comments about the war with Iraq, and Koch Brothers insanity.”
Nowhere on this site, have I ever agreed with Libby on Iraq on the Koch Brothers. I don’t agree with everything she says, and I only chime in once in a while. And not on those issues. But because I disagree with you I’m automatically labeled a 20-something dude who hates Republicans and has it out for all of them. Because I asked you to provide sources for your Big Gay Conspiracy theory, I’m proving my mentality of ‘us vs them’ and ‘destruction and hate.’
And then you post a wall of long-winded, rambling text. You STILL don’t provide a source verifying your theory, but once again claim, ‘they don’t care about the risk, they want people to get aids so that they can prove they are equal.”
Sweetheart, you’re making that tin foil hat person argument far better than I ever could.
You guys see where PEDOPHILIA was classified as “sexual orientation” by the American Psychiatric Assoc a few weeks ago? And then only when they caught heat for it was the classification changed. ?????
Jon’s point still stands. Everyone face discrimination.
Should we pass more laws that result in companies simply taking a formula for how many whites blacks gays and asians they hire?
That’s what they do now. And if they are at the quota for whites (which they typically are, since there are more whites) then whites just can’t be accepted for employment there and that’s ok right?
Because we are protecting the gay person, who cares who gets hit in the cross fire.
You’ve got to grow up.
Bad things happen. That doesn’t mean we should go out there guns blazing firing at anything we can.
November 11, 2013 at 2:40 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No, Bob. That’s not what they do.
If that were the case, my department of over 100 people would not be 85% white.
My best friend spent 3 years working for the EEOC. You know what? All that “you must have equal minority hiring” crap is just a myth.
In fact, the EEOC much more often than not finds in favor of the hiring company.
November 11, 2013 at 3:13 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes Jon, that’s what they do.
The example listed in the class was a company that was actually sued who did lay off equal amounts of all ages/ethnicity so as not to appear to be laying off people based on those factors.
They were still able to be sued, because they didn’t keep track of the hiring/firing procedure.
But the point is, it is a real method. You simply cannot deny that.
November 11, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I do deny it. I’ve been in this business for 33 years and do not know of one company that does this. Yes, you have to be careful with your Employment Practices, but there is no quota to fill. Period.
November 12, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Why not says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I agree should we change the law to protect the overweight and homely?
What are you saying? That white males should take priority over everyone else?
I’m a white male and I’m all for employers hiring the best candidate for the job. Personal bias (whether racial, sexual, religious, length of your hair, etc etc etc) should never play a part in hiring.
Do you know the method that corporations take in order to ensure they have no discrimination law suits?
They hire equal amounts of blacks, asians, whites, etc. What he is saying, is that many companies have a “quota” on whites (and others) in order to make the appearance that they aren’t discriminating, rather than hire based on the candidate’s skills.
You are eager to try to find people who are what fit inside of your narrow mind’s concept of a villain. There aren’t many people out there like that as you believe, and the reason you believe it is actually you need a villain, likely because you aren’t a very good person yourself.
Yeah, I’ve taken a couple in my 35+ years in the industry – both on the company side and the DOI side. Believe it or not, at the DOI we were always told to offer open positions THE BEST CANDIDATE! If, and only if, 2 candiddates were equal, then we looked at minority as a factor. AND there were no quotas – even at the state.
They do, for a fact, try to avoid disparity in the ethnicity.
Moron.
And no, you have not taken classes. This is one of the first things we went over in employment practices liability. What they said was that if you have a disparity, then you better have in place a method to prove the white candidate was better than the black.
Their commentary though, was it was simply a better action to take to avoid disparity, and most corporations take that route.
November 12, 2013 at 1:45 pm
insurance is fun! says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jeez, Bob: you hurt my feelings.
It’s hard to get past being called “moron,” “condescending jerk,” and “not a very good person” to respond to your otherwise superb insight.
I think what you are really saying is that at the class you took, the teacher told you that you’d better document a “reason” that the white guy is a better candidate so you can hire him…wink, wink. Just a guess…because, as you know, I didn’t take the class.
November 12, 2013 at 1:54 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You probably taught the class.
November 12, 2013 at 1:55 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Oh. And I meant that as a compliment. :-)
November 12, 2013 at 2:19 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Cry me a river.
And yes. I know the hiring process. Next to no firm is told flat out to hire more blacks or less blacks.
When it comes to layoffs, in a corporation with 3000 people, let’s just say that blacks have a larger lay off rate because they didn’t attend a more prestigious college (statistically, there are states where this is true.) so the company ends up laying off all those black employees, and keeping the white employees who attended the more prestigious one.
You don’t think they keep a larger chunk of the lower prestigious college graduates, than they would keep of the whites from lower college graduates? If you don’t, you’re lying to yourself.
By the by: Being called a moron, when you’re being a moron, and being called a condescending jerk, after your reply to a guy who NEVER said a racist comment was to imply he was racist, and being told you’re not a very good person, are not the worst things to be told.
Clearly, you are used to being told yes and what you want to hear.
November 12, 2013 at 2:42 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – those can be the worst things to be told. Especially by a complete stranger. You go around slinging out insults like a pez dispenser and then rail against others (Democrats) that you say do the same thing. You did call him a name and you did insult him. At least own it instead of trying to minimize it.
You ridicule and then complain against being ridiculed yourself (see your post above.) That is the epitomy of hypocrisy.
November 12, 2013 at 2:53 pm
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob, just an anecdotal aside here. When the home health agency I worked for had to lay off people, it strictly based on longevity. Not what college you attended, not how much experience you have overall, just how long you worked for that agency. (I was subbing for the HR person, so I had to prepare the data for the executive director)
November 12, 2013 at 10:21 am
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Considering a white girl sued the University of Texas over admissions practices, I think it is safe to say there is no guarantee against discrimination suits.
I’ve been in charge of hiring (thankfully for only a couple of years) and I can say no one ever suggested I hire the minority or the white kid. It was a very subjective process because I was hiring for an entry level position that had no requirements. The point was always the best fit. Where I am now, I don’t have to worry about it, but I will say our boss (who happens to be a white male) does his best to hire the most qualified person. That’s all anyone can do. If the best candidate is gay, then they shouldn’t be skipped over because they’re gay. That’s what ENDA is about.
What a stupid and ignorant comment. It’s people like you who perpetuate stupidity and prejudice……and in my opinion don’t even deserve to be a part of these United States.
The downtrodden white male receives less support, and is often not hired as a result of firms trying to have equal amounts of all colors in the firm.
When there are less blacks than whites, and there are equal amounts at a large corporation, this means more whites are turned away as a proportion. This same occurrence happens at schools, with scholarships, etc.
I don’t care about past suffrage. That in no way makes it ok to treat the white male like trash. It is just a fact.
Corporations don’t keep track of minority quotas. That’s a ridiculous allegation. And even if they did, they would have to do it based on the demographics for their area – not equal parts black, white, Asian, etc.
November 11, 2013 at 3:06 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes, they do.
Not all corporations, but a heck of a lot.
November 11, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No, they don’t. They may document their files when interviewing minorities that are not subsequently hired, but they don’t have a quota or count.
November 11, 2013 at 3:16 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
I have seen the example in class.
Business have, and still do, take the layoff/hire equal amounts method.
Quota is probably not the appropriate word.
Yes, they do.
I’m getting a little sick of your knee jerk comments. I don’t do that. Ever. You didn’t even look this up. You’re going based off the top of your head of “that would never happen! It didn’t happen at my work!”. I saw the case studies Libby. The firm was still able to be sued, due to not having an adaquette hiring/layoff tracking procedure. But they clearly took a method that many companies took not long ago.
November 11, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – It’s not a knee jerk reaction. I have taken many, many classes on this very subject and have insured thousands of clients in my 33 years.
Anyone can be sued for anything. That is why we sell Employment Practices liability insurance. Yes, you have to be careful when documenting hiring, firing, and disciplinary actions – but I repeat, THERE ARE NO QUOTAS.
November 12, 2013 at 10:33 am
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
All the company has to do is have a legitimate process and document that process through any hiring or promotions.
During my weird career path, I have not seen any companies that worry about hiring a set number of any race. I may not have taken any classes on selling EPL, but I have taken classes at grad school and CPE groups.
I have not heard of preferential hiring. Every class or conference I’ve attended has stressed the process. If the process is created to hire the best candidate and you follow that process from start to finish, you’re protected. You only have problems if you deviate from the process to EXCLUDE someone you don’t like (for whatever reason).
ENDA may not seem necessary to you, but no one should be excluded from a position based on a trait or characteristic that has nothing to do with the job.
November 12, 2013 at 2:15 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
Stop using the word quota. I used it once, for lack of a better word.
These companies do pay attention, especially on layoffs, to if there is an imbalance of blacks being laid off for example. And if there is, they double check their documentation.
AND OR re-consider the amount of black people they are laying off. Statistically, sooner or later you will coincidentally lay off more blacks. But it certainly won’t look that way in court. They do pay attention if that balance is off. And then they specifically modify it.
To say they don’t, is insane. It does happen.
November 12, 2013 at 2:49 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yeah, and I said bin Laden was found in Afghanistan ONCE, yet you still keep bringing it up. Why don’t you start acting like you want everyone else to act?
And don’t try backpedaling now. You were not specifically talking just about lay-offs.
“The downtrodden white male receives less support, and is often not hired as a result of firms trying to have equal amounts of all colors in the firm. When there are less blacks than whites, and there are equal amounts at a large corporation, this means more whites are turned away as a proportion. This same occurrence happens at schools, with scholarships, etc.”
“And the corporation is simply hiring just as many whites and blacks in the corporation to avoid getting sued. Then they are specifically turning down enormous amounts of white people simply because they are white which is not fair.”
We live in a litigous society. As long as you are documenting your hiring, firing, and performance improvement processes you can protect yourself WHEN sued. Nothing will keep you from being sued if someone feels they’ve been discriminated against. Again, that’s why we sell EPLI. For the defense coverage.
Again, no numbers, head-counting, or quotas.
November 7, 2013 at 3:29 pm
TxLady says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes, everyone should be equal, but with so very much messed up in this country, is this really what the senate needs to be working on? I can think of so many higher priority items.
I was a registered Republican for over 10 years. Again, another instance where you don’t know what you’re talking about.
And since when are Republicans discriminated against. Look at all of them on this blog. If anyone’s beind discriminated against on here it’s liberals. You’re ridiculous!
“Only a SC redneck would compare gay people to rapists and child molesters. Don’t they educate you hicks down there?”
This is not including your commentary to do with no republican alternative for the PPACA
NO alternative?
Patients Choice Act of 2009.
This coupled with medicare expansion part D.
Republicans want people to die?
Paul Ryan commercial, wheeling a granny off a cliff.
Republicans are for corporations? Heard of it much?
Then do some research on the preferential tax code methods employed by democrats regarding green energy, and manufacturing (both good in their own right, but all corporations need a lower rate).
Discrimination does exist against republicans to the degree, that even if an alternate plan is put forth by them, it “doesn’t exist”.
Discrimination exists to the degree, that even if republicans pass gay marriage laws, that protect churches as well, they are against gays.
Discrimination exists to the degree, that even when Bush W passes health revisions, he is against healthcare. Even when Reagan passes a requirement for treatment, republicans want people to not get healthcare. And then that is blamed on the inefficiency in the insurance industry. Considering $8 billion per year comes from that, I doubt a multi trillion dollar industry needs to get those people insured to become profitable enough to expand risk pool.
The majority public is against republican, without regard for facts.
They are discriminatory.
Side comment: When you are called a socialist it is not discrimination.
When you are told you are sipping on cool aid, it is not discrimination.
You’re being called that for having an idiotic opinion, and for not thinking logically.
The insults the right have thrown at you on here, do not resemble southern hick. At all.
Being called an idiot is not a form of discrimination, when someone presents you with facts.
Go to school as a republican. See what happens. That is discrimination.
There are not crowds of people hating gays. There are crowds seeking out the gay hating crowds. And when you see one, they are isolated, insulted, etc.
GO. BACK. TO. SCHOOL. Pay attention to your kids. My brother was SUSPENDED nearly EXPELLED for writing that a character in a book who decided to swim out to sea to commit suicide was a poor decision to make ethically, morally, and degraded the character.
It was considered a “social hot topic”.
Go in public and yell at the top of your lungs: I HATE GAY MARRIAGE!!
Then go yell at the top of your lungs I LOVE GAY MARRIAGE!!!
WHICH WOULD YOU FEEL YOU HAD THE SUPPORT OF EVERYONE YELLING?
You’re a complete fool if you feel that liberals have harder life than republicans.
We always have to justify our beliefs to your side, least be called a religious zealot, a hick, or prejudiced, racist, against “equality” etc.
By the by: I’ll say this again, you were NOT a republican.
If you were, societal pressure got to you big time. As seen in your ignorant, often factless, commentary.
November 11, 2013 at 3:20 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Wow, Bob. Rant much?
Discrimination? Pish posh. When the Republican House opposes any and all bills regarding gay rights, their position on gays is clear. To call them out on it is only pointing out their position. It’s not discrimination.
The same with Healthcare. Republicans had many, many chances to put forth healthcare reform when they had a majority. They did nothing. To say they do not want equal healthcare for all is not discrimination. It’s fact.
And yes, dear Bob, I was a Republican raised in a military household with both parents registered Republicans. My mother is now a registered Democrat along with me and my sister. Societal pressure has nothing to do with it. Republicans are more considered the norm than us far-out hippy, dippy liberals. That’s how we are portrayed. Either that or we’re no good, lazy, deadbeats with our hand out for everyone else’s money.
Grow up. You’re no more discriminated against because of your political party than I am.
And the SC redneck comment was specifically targeted at Jack-Ass and not all people from SC. Learn to read.
November 12, 2013 at 2:28 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
Not a rant, all relevant facts.
Moving on: They did not have a super majority. Your party did not vote for the patients choice act. They didn’t vote for just about anything Bush put forward except for children insurance aspect, and medicare part d.
Your party had a near super majority when they put through what they wanted.
Don’t tell me that those plans didn’t pass because of republicans.
Let’s stay on point: Would the patient’s choice act, or would it not, have been better than Obama’s plan?
And why didn’t it pass?
If your answer is it is the republican’s fault, you’re wrong.
By the by: So then, you stopped being republican, because you were tired of being labeled. I do oh so love being right about that. I’ve said it before, and you confirmed it below.
Did too many repubwicans call you a big bad lazy person? Awww poor baby. Is that harder than being called a racist, homophobe? No. Is that harder than being told you want people to die? No. You took the easier route.
More democrats are lazy, it’s why they vote entitlement every time. Deal with it. It is a VERY serious problem in this state, women getting pregnant, and either collecting from the state or a boyfriend. Or guys living off their girlfriends. They are democrat. EVERY time. It’s just the way it is.
The SC comment was directed at your opinion that SC people are hicks. It was not just the jack ass.
I am not more discriminated against democrats.
I just know math and numbers. A few years back I talked about the real pressures women have with abortions and how to direct it. Then both Switzerland and England did paper studies regarding the pressures women face. The two primary reasons matching what I noted: Not wanting to be stuck with a mate, and not being ready. It was obvious to start with, if you paid attention to democrat women (abortion supporters). It was not so obvious if you paid attention to extreme liberal women or media (It’s about our body!! = Lie.)
Everything I have said is true of democrats, is true.
Everything you have said about republicans, is not.
November 12, 2013 at 3:00 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob says –
“So then, you stopped being republican, because you were tired of being labeled. I do oh so love being right about that. I’ve said it before, and you confirmed it below.” – Wrong. Again. I was never labeled for being a republican. Unlike you, I don’t feel a need to go around shouting my political views to anyone in earshot. I think my statement was that republicans are considered more the norm. Not Democrats, as you have confirmed with your diatribe about how lazy we are and how we do not care for our friends in need and etc. ad nauseum.
“Did too many repubwicans call you a big bad lazy person? Awww poor baby. Is that harder than being called a racist, homophobe? No. Is that harder than being told you want people to die? No. You took the easier route.” Again, no. I’ve never been a big, bad lazy person since I left home and started working for a living at age 17. And I don’t label all Republicans homophobe and racist. Only those that make it perfectly clear they are on this blog. That is not discriminating. It is identifying their mind-set and calling them on it. Much as you feel you are entitled to by calling people Moron, Child, Idiot, etc. ad nauseum.
And finally “The SC comment was directed at your opinion that SC people are hicks. It was not just the jack ass.” – If you will notice, the comment was pasted right under his hideous post comparing rapists and pedophiles to homosexuals. Jackass IS from SC, he acts like a hick, and I had a legitimate question about his education since I spent many formative years in NC which is not much better. Fortunately for me I made it out of NC or might be just as ignorant as he.
November 12, 2013 at 10:42 am
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I, too, used to be republican. Both my parents were republicans, even when we lived in democrate states. My parents (retired Marine dad, btw) have been democrats for the last decade or so.
I haven’t seen any republicans discriminated against. What is your definition of discrimination? (calling someone names is not discrimination in my mind. just low class)
Discrimination is when someone ignores your ideas simply because they have an R before them.
Or when people claim you want people to die. Even when Reagan put in place the mandated care, Bush W expanded insurance for children and medicare part d, etc.
Or when people say you didn’t push civil rights, even when more of your party voted for it as a percentage, and your party made the 1957 civil rights bill.
The republicans are never given credit, and are constantly blamed for every form of hate, discrimination, social injustice, or economic issue. Try to say it happens to democrats: No. It does not. I can list examples all day, you go ahead and list yours. Then we will weigh which happens more, and which is more severe.
People love medicare, and social security. They vote based on it. Why not the 401k and the Roth IRA? Why were they against the SRA Bush proposed? Because he was a republican. Look at history. Pay attention to kids. Pay attention to college graduates. Always democrat leaning. There is something that needs to be stopped.
I don’t doubt that you’re a moderate. Even though I think you’re far too emotional on abortion. You’re not a jerk either.
Something you might want to look at by the way, just if you’re interested in learning more about why I’m republican:
Read up, “care” no matter what. You’re not protecting women. You’re harming them and allowing them to believe it’s about “their body” as to why they have an abortion as you said recently.
Recently when I got pissed at you and Libby for saying I didn’t understand what women went through, I’m the only one on this site that DOES understand what women go through. It is why I cussed you both out, it’s also why I’m against the democrats. This affects women. Look at the suicide rates. That is just suicide, not depression. You might think me over the top, but I OVER react. Anyone who over reacts, is reacting to something that was not right. What you said, was not right to men, their pressures when they learn they are having a child, and was completely selfish against them. I went dumb for an hour. I could not speak, when I first heard I was having a kid. My wife is amazing. A great woman. But even she told me that if I had not wanted the kid at the time, she would have had the baby anyway (and at that point we would have split up). I was painfully aware of that fact, and it is part of the reason I want dumb. It is YOU that does not understand what happens when as a male you learn you will be a father, linked for life, to the mother, even if she fails you will have to pay for her life as well. You deal with just the pressure of the kid. We deal with the pressure of you being some stranger who could destroy our entire life.
Women don’t have abortions because they feel their body changing. They have abortions because of pressure of having a child. Same as men. So us men decide for the same reason as you. More interestingly, us men care more about you. Because when you say it’s your body, we just shut up. When we say we don’t want a kid, you have it anyway, despite our inability to raise the kid. How fair do you find that? While being told we don’t understand the pressure? It’s condescending, and absolutely abhorrent.
These movements HAVE to be stopped.
November 12, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – I went dumb when I read your post. You’re the ONLY ONE that understands how women feel? What an assinine thing to say.
And again, you take one instance that happened in your life how many years ago and become fanatical about it. Guess what, Bob. NOT EVERYONE IS YOU. I know plenty of women that have had abortions and know they made the right choice and have NEVER regretted it.
Bottom line, you don’t want babies don’t have unprotected sex. If you do have unprotected sex, you as a man, are in for a situation over which you have no control. Deal with it.
November 12, 2013 at 3:18 pm
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob, I don’t really think misrepresenting the source of a solution is discrimination. That may be annoying or borderline idea theft, but it is not discrimination.
Ignoring ideas COULD be discrimination, but I’m not convinced.
Another weird fact about my unusual life, I grew up where white people were scarce. Very scarce. I suffered from harrassment (until I stood up for myself-marine brat, remember?). I was NOT discriminated against, however. I know the difference.
However, calling someone names is low class, and can rise to the level of harrassment or even escalate to violence. That is still not discrimination. I don’t approve of harrassment any more than discrimination. I just don’t want the issue of ‘discrimination’ to get lost in the conversation (well, what passes for conversation on IJ).
Let’s table the abortion talk in this particular thread. I understand what you said. I actually do have further comments and questions, but not here. Not in the thread about ENDA.
Or rather a vote on the patient’s choice act, or the CBO 2009 plan.
The democrats used a super majority with no bi partisan support to pass the PPACA. If it didn’t get even 5% of the republican vote, it didn’t deserve to pass.
Like it or not, at least 25% of the population to 30% are republicans. So they get a say in the government. If not more than 5 republicans supported the plan, it didn’t deserve to pass.
Your iron fist rule type of team mind set is astounding.
Wah!!! Cry baby. If Republicans want a bigger say in government they need to put up some candidates worth voting for. It’s not our fault your guys can’t get elected.
November 11, 2013 at 3:06 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
We do have candidates. What we need is the end of your “with us” or against all minorities mindset.
Your party is a dominator. Always has been. Always will be.
Slavery. Aggregation. Segregation was just 40 years ago. Your party changed image, not tactics.
November 11, 2013 at 3:22 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well, I suggest your party do the same. That is if you want to have a say in government. It ain’t happenin’ any other way.
November 12, 2013 at 2:46 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You suggest my party dominates in similar fashion to slavery and segregation?
Very nice.
Being on the winning side doesn’t make you right.
November 12, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – PLEASE take a reading comprehension class. I am getting so tired of having you unravel your twisted reasoning behind my every post.
You said ” Your party changed image, not tactics.” It was the last sentence to your post. I then replied, “I suggest your party do the same.”
Get it?
November 8, 2013 at 9:52 am
jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Why is it hate speech or a hate crime when it’s done to blacks,homosexuals,muslims,etc but not others? Serious question!
This reminds me of when Planet said you and I appeared to be in a relationship due to how we fought.
Hilarious.
November 12, 2013 at 4:34 pm
jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, i think libby is really attracted to me but she’s scared to admitt it in front of her lib friends on here. I bet if we ran in to each other in public she would be on me like white on rice. You know that opposites attract thing they always talk about. And i can say white on rice cause i’m a honkie!
November 12, 2013 at 4:48 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yeah, Jack, you caught on to me. All that talk about homos and honkies is really turning me on.
November 8, 2013 at 5:18 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Serious answer – I define hate speech as, “bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or any member of such a group.” So, if it’s done to caucasions (which I am guessing you might be suggesting), I’d call it hate speech. Happy to help!
I bet you were calling for the resignation of Bill Maher this morning……crickets. Did you see the hate directed at Conan O’Brien this weekend after a little tweet about Muslims and crickets on the left about Bill Maher? Hypocrits as usual.
I did not see it but did just go to The Blaze to take a loot at it. I couldn’t find it, only Conan’s tasteless tweet. And, the hilariously racist and prejudiced commentary from the bloggers below the tweet, too. Bill’s employment status is between he and his employer. Let me know when Bill commits a crime and we can have the conversation.
Cap- there’s your problem. It took me one google search to find Bill’s rant. You do that much research on all of your opinions?
You made my point for me about “hate speech”. You get it yet???
You see the left calls it hate speech or a hate crime when it’s against their opinions only. We call it free speech regardless. I don’t care if Bill keeps his job or not. Paula Dean gets fired for say N 10 years ago.
Do you see the double standard? Of course you don’t.
November 11, 2013 at 4:19 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It is hate speech, Jack. Hate is hate, whether it’s towards blacks, gays, or white people. You seem to have alot stored up for anyone that is not just like you.
November 12, 2013 at 8:20 am
JACK says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, then why is it that people on the right pay a higher price for it? Why is it that black on white murder is not reported in the same way?
I agree hate is hate when it comes to murder,violent crimes. But speech is opinion and free speech is guaranteed regardless of your opinion.
November 12, 2013 at 9:01 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bill didn’t get fired because that is between he and his employer. Paula Dean got fired because that is between her and her employer. Has nothing to do with a political affiliation. Again, did Bill commit a hate crime? If yes, then I say he should be prosecuted. No double standard there. Perhaps you should famaliarize yourself with the definition.
Is Bill’s rant from last year? I found something from last year, but nothing current.
November 12, 2013 at 9:16 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Libby, then why is it that people on the right pay a higher price for it?”
People on the right pay a higher price for hate speech? While I question your source for such an outrageous statement, if that’s true it does not speak well for these people on the right to which you refer.
And what do you mean by “Why is it that black on white murder is not reported in the same way? ” How should each be reported?
November 11, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Got Insurance? says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
If you dont already know the answer to your “serious question” than I just lost a lot of faith in peoples IQ’s and our education system.
Wow, they say this will help millions. I didn’t know millions of gay people are being fired or not promoted because of their sexual preference. I work with a few gay people and some are above me in the company, and I mean way above me, and some are below. None have ever been fired in the long time I’ve worked here. Obviously some have been promoted way up and it’s not a secret of their orientation. A few have left on their own for bigger and better jobs. So this will affect millions, I question that. Just another law people can use to sue over, that’s all it is. This bill was probably started by a law firm because they wanted some more teeth into their lawsuits vs the average discrimination that anyone can face.
You question it based off of anecdotal evidence? I hope all of your opinions aren’t formed on that basis. The fact is that no one should be fired or not hired because of their sexual orientation and in some states it is still legal for that to happen. It doesn’t matter if it affects millions of people or one-it shouldn’t happen at all.
AE,
I’d like to see your evidence that it will affect millions of people. Show me because I haven’t seen the numbers. So we need to pass another law when we already have discrimination laws in place. So tomorrow should we pass a no Asian discrimination law, the day after a Caucasian law, then the day after that a Hispanic law? That’s like the government adding a law that says, no going over the speed limit law. We already have a speed limit law, but I guess that would be a way for you to get two tickets (one for speeding and another for going over the speed limit). Like I said, this was probably started by lawyers so they can reference two laws when someone is fired, vs the one we all use.
The current discrimination laws already “protects applicants and employees from discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin. Religious discrimination includes failing to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices where the accommodation does not impose undue hardship.” (http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/posters/pdf/eeopost.pdf) That should cover your concern about Asians, Caucasians and Hispanics.
This law just adds another category of people who can’t be discriminated against just because others might disagree with their sexuality.
And a quick googling came up with this to support the ‘millions’ of people that ENDA will help:
“Because many people are not “out,” this provides additional counting difficulty. One survey of LGB employees found that 23.8% of lesbian and gay people were not out to anyone at work, and 48.8% of bisexual people were not out to anyone at work
One 2011 study found an estimated 9 million, or approximately 4% of the U.S. population is lesbian, gay, or bisexual, and .3% is transgender.
Like many people of different races, colors and religions, many LGBT Americans will need to invoke this protection. Many work for companies that don’t have issues with their sexuality/gender. But, ENDA will help make sure that those who don’t work for such companies won’t be harassed or discriminated against due to their sexuality.
I’m waiting for the transgender bathrooms at my office. I may feel like a man one day and a woman the next. Of course that depends on who’s using the ladies…you know what i mean.
I threw that one out there just for you Libby. I already have a transgender bathroom in my office. It’s call a 1 person bathroom. You see thats where this kinda of crap will take us. Libby imagine your grandson or grandaughter going into a public restroom say at a rest area on the interstate. All of a sudden you look and see a person of the opp sex going in behind them. Whats going thru your mind at that point?
You’re clueless (a nice word for ignorant.) Transgender means they are no longer of the opposite sex. That’s the “trans” part in case you were wondering.
And once again, you are comparing gay people to pedophiles. Clueless, just clueless.
Libby fail- it can also be their state of mind until the sex change
November 12, 2013 at 3:12 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Newflash homophobe, transgenders in transition think and act like their opposite sex. They have ALWAYS thought and acted like their opposite sex. The surgical part is only cosmetic. Really, you are pathetic with your backwoods mentality. Read a book.
November 12, 2013 at 3:42 pm
jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So if you go into a restroom Libby and the woman next to you has facial hair..you know kinda 5 oclock shadow type stuff..how do you know its a transgender?
November 12, 2013 at 3:52 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I think I’d tell him he’s in the wrong restroom. A transgender male to woman wouldn’t be caught dead in public with facial hair.
November 12, 2013 at 4:16 pm
jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So they shave in the car on long road trips? Get otta here. That’s very transgender of them. You crack me up, no pun intended. I love you Libby. Are you married?
November 12, 2013 at 9:23 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
BTW – do you know any gay or transgender people? Or do you just run them out of town on a rail?
We let them in SC but we require it be stamped on their DL so when the cops pull them over or they go to vote we know who we are dealing with….ya know what i mean.
You guys are too easy to get fired up. I love it when the hate comes out so clear for someone with a diff opinion. You sit there and call it hate speech when you are so filled with it. If it were not so sad it would be funny.
November 12, 2013 at 1:56 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I don’t hate you, Jack. I feel sorry for you.
November 12, 2013 at 2:47 pm
jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby- I feel the hate from here so don’t try the feel sorry crap.
November 12, 2013 at 3:14 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I don’t hate you. I hate how you think. You have slurred almost every minority there is. Now either you’re a hopeless bigot or just a troll. Either way, you’re not worth my time.
November 12, 2013 at 3:26 pm
jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
there,there libby. I think we have established everyone is a bigot in their own way. Admitting it is the 1st step. Once you admit it then you can use words like craka,honkie,bigot in your office without fear. Come on say it with me..HONKIE at the top of your lungs. Feels good!
November 12, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m not Libby so I am not answering for her. Though, I will say the scenario you drew out is exactly what happens in some foreign countries and it isn’t an issue (all sex bathrooms). Just people answering the call of nature. If it’s privacy you seek, close the door. If you are worried about the safety of a child, attend the bathroom with them.
Cap- you ever had a homo hit on you while standing at a urinal? Do you have children or grandchildren?
I guess me assuming you are a man with the name Captain Planet is sexist, but lets go there anyway.
November 12, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No, but I bet you have.
November 12, 2013 at 1:58 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You’re awfully hung-up on bathrooms and bodily functions.
November 12, 2013 at 2:06 pm
jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
libby why don’t you let the person answer a question instead of injecting your feelings every chance you get.
November 12, 2013 at 2:07 pm
txmouthbreatherboogereatertx says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Must have been the guy on the other side of the stall when conservative Sen Craig was tap dancing looking to score in a air port bathroom
November 12, 2013 at 2:09 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So, a man found you attractive and hit on you. Were you forced to reciprocate? If not, then what’s the problem? Be happy someone thinks you’re attractive enough to try to get your attention. You don’t have to do anything about it. Just say “thanks, but not interested,’ and walk away. No harm, no foul.
I don’t understand why this is an issue.
November 12, 2013 at 2:35 pm
jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
BS- John 3:18 offends a lot of people. Why is that?
November 12, 2013 at 2:58 pm
txmouthbreaterboogereatertx says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
How can there still be all these societal issues in the South with all this Bible Thumping? Is this the chemical reaction you get from drinking strychnine and getting bit by a rattlesnake?
November 12, 2013 at 2:59 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jack,
John 3:18 “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
I’m sorry. I’m not sure I understand how this verse relates to this discussion? Am I looking at the right one?
November 12, 2013 at 3:20 pm
jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
When you or someone else see’s the cross in a school or government building or any government property are you forced to reciprocate? Can’t you say “thanks,but not interested” and walk away. No harm,no foul?
November 12, 2013 at 3:20 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jack – aren’t you the one crying about free speech? Yet you wish to censor me? I’ll post whatever I want, whenever I want cuz this here’s the daggum United States of America, goddammit.
November 12, 2013 at 3:29 pm
jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Now we are getting somewhere….go ahead let that hate out a little louder…yell HONKIE,CRAKA,BIGOT real loud.
November 12, 2013 at 3:32 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You are comparing apples to shoes. Crosses in schools or government buildings have absolutely nothing to do with a man hitting on another man, and how you deal with either.
But since you mentioned it, personally, I don’t care about crosses in secular schools or government buildings. As long as they allow other religions expressions to be displayed as well, if requested, I’m fine with them.
November 12, 2013 at 3:35 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jack – you need to read the part in the Constitution about separation of church and state.
November 12, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
WTH are you talking about? Why would I yell those things out loud? Maybe you think I am a minority because of my ideals. You would be wrong. Blonde, blue eyed, caucasian American female born and bred.
November 12, 2013 at 3:50 pm
jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I could tell you are white, that was easy. On top of that only white people can yell honkie,craka,bigot and laugh about it…right. Anyone else says it and it’s HATE speech remember. So say it loud and proud honkie!
Man I miss messing with you libs when I go home to my white priviledged neighborhood every night. Honkies!
November 12, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
OK. So you are a troll.
November 12, 2013 at 4:11 pm
jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
trolls have feelings too :)
November 12, 2013 at 5:27 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jack,
Never had a gay guy hit on me at the urinal. At a downtown bar in the beer garden, yes. With my wife sitting there, so he knew he had no shot. You know what, didn’t matter. I could care less. So, someone found me attractive – great! Unfortunately for him, I wasn’t interested because I am not gay. I do have some gay friends and a relative, though. You might find it crazy, but gay isn’t contagious. Oh, and the same sexual activity that happens in a gay bedroom happens in a straight one, too.
I have 2 daughters.
Jack, you aren’t really Bob Vander Plaats or Rick Santorum, are you?
November 12, 2013 at 11:40 am
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jack, yes, we know you mean. Even people who think they are normal have their kinky pervy sides.
The difference Celtica is choosing not to act on them.Free will is a gift and a curse depending on how we use it. I know we all have those weak moments and periods of time in our life when we act out. Been there,done that. But society has lost it’s way and there will be a heavy price to pay. Our children and grandchildren will pay with loss of freedom,liberty,wealth.
No, Jack, that is not the difference. The difference is that you even think of it. Normal people do not. Only those who think they are normal (but who aren’t really normal) think of it.
too bad monica lewinsky didn’t have that on, there would not have been any DNA
November 12, 2013 at 5:17 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
All play and no work makes Jack a pervy boy…
November 12, 2013 at 3:31 pm
justaguy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
jack and bob are definitely leading in the dislike category. I can understand why for jack since it appears he got his education out behind the barn. For bob, I’m perplexed since he has spent his life taking courses and his father worked on the machine that diagnosed aids.
Gay people don’t try to spread HIV or attack you or your children in bathrooms.
The term for those people is “psycopath” and they could be of any gender, race, sexual preference, religion or political affiliation.
Although I do not feel that employers should discriminate against anyone why is it that in our politically correct world that a employer should not be able to choose who they desire? I know that I for one would probably choose not to do business with a company that had employee’s who were openly gay or transgender. By the same token I would not want to do business with a company with heterosexual employees who were openly displaying their sexual life.
We are all who we are but we do not need to flaunt it in the workplace.
Why Not,
I would venture to guess you don’t believe people need to hide their ethnicity, right? (I have the vision of that SNL skit when Eddie Murphy goes caucasion). Why do you ask gays or transgenders to hide who they are? And, if they did hide themselves and you did business with them, wouldn’t you still be doing business with a gay person or a transgender? Open or not, it doesn’t change the fact you did business with someone who I imagine you may feel is “icky”.
Should I tell my friend Tony over here to quit being so openly black?
You left out rapist and child molesters, you know they were born that way too.
Jack,
Are you really comparing gay people to rapists and child molesters?
As of now, 4 people don’t think I’m allowed to ask Jack a question. But, whenever they want to speak out against political correctness, I’m sure they reference the First Amendment. Constitutional touting hypocracy.
Captain- sure i am. it’a free speech right?
Only a SC redneck would compare gay people to rapists and child molesters. Don’t they educate you hicks down there?
Let’s not label all of SC and rednecks as gay haters ok Libby?
Jack, if you don’t believe gay people were born that way, find a #@%@ing better comparison.
My god. I would not want you sitting at my table with my kids when they said they had a gay friend.
I read these comments a lot in the IJ and agree and disagree with people from all sides…that comment from Jack is maybe one of the most appalling that I have ever seen on these threads. Thing is, you cannot tell people like that anything, they have it embedded in their brain that what they say is gospel. There may be a Freudian reference as to why Jack is that opposed to gays…
Absolutely, free speech. And because of it, you sound more like a Jack Ass.
Cap- if AR15’s killed as many people as AID’s they would be banned by now don’t you think? How many men a year are killed by AID’s that was casued by man to man sex? Why don’t we hear about the number of people killed by it worldwide any longer? You and many like you have bought the LIE.
Source required on your “AIDS was caused by man to man sex.” HIV came from a chimp according to, oh I don’t know, science. Did you know you can get it from just coming into contact with infected blood? Even heterosexual people can get it. Even sexually inactive people can get it. It sounds as though it is you who has bought a lie.
Planet:
Nope. Getting it from coming into contact with blood is extremely unlikely, because the virus dies as soon as it hits air.
There were two primary ways it became wide spread:
One: Needles.
Two: Anal sex. Regardless of gender of recipient.
As an aside: A major contributing factor was that before we put in place regulations regarding blood transfusions, and we made it illegal for gays to donate blood, a huge chunk of gays with infected blood donated blood and made a widespread infection. I would say the “war” against gays with aids is well deserved, considering they only did that to show that heterosexual people could get it as well.
Aids occurrence rates, note the wording “The CDC reports that 63 percent of new HIV infections occur among MSM — the agency’s shorthand for “Men Who Have Sex With Men.”
“Much of this fear dates back to 1983, not long before the ban went into effect, when some patients being treated for hemophilia started displaying AIDS-related symptoms after receiving routine blood transfusions. It was a clear sign that HIV-positive donors were, knowingly or not, infecting the national blood supply”
(It was knowingly)
Every article out there has acknowledged that male to male sex has caused the infection of aids to go extremely widespread. But that’s just like, totally against gays right?
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/banned-life-why-gay-men-still-cant-donate-blood-6C10622947
http://www.health.state.nm.us/phd/dist3/5FactsAboutHIV.html
And the article about aids dying when it hits air.
“Whilst HIV may live for a short while outside of the body, HIV transmission has not been reported as a result of contact with spillages or small traces of blood, semen or other bodily fluids. This is partly because HIV dies quite quickly once exposed to the air, and also because spilled fluids would have to get into a person’s bloodstream to infect them.”
My father worked on the machines that would diagnose aids, and also worked on potential cures, much earlier in his career.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. He would come home complaining about the fact that aids died after it was exposed to air, and other complications when they were studying it.
Cap- i’m talking about NOW you idiot. How many were killed last year by MSM? How many? You got it, thousands! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Bob- thanks for the facts but libtards are not interested in facts…..just feelings for them.
Bob says:
“a huge chunk of gays with infected blood donated blood and made a widespread infection. I would say the “war” against gays with aids is well deserved, considering they only did that to show that heterosexual people could get it as well…”
“It was a clear sign that HIV-positive donors were, knowingly or not, infecting the national blood supply”
(It was knowingly)”
I am having a very hard time believing that there was a Big Gay Conspiracy to taint the blood supply to ‘show that heterosexual people get it as well.’ Please provide a source for these statements. Otherwise, I’m going to assume that you are making them up to get a rise out of people.
Jack,
The reason we don’t hear as much about it now as before is that we have an understanding of it. We know what it is, how it’s transmitted and how to prevent it. It’s not the mystery it once was. And with the new medications available, it seems (whether correctly or not) somewhat beatable. At least in the states.
World-wide, it’s a different story. In 2012, 2.3 million people were newly infected with HIV, and 1.6 million people died from AIDS. Over 200,000 of those people were/are under the age of 15.
And while you are correct that in the US, MSM is the group that is the most affected by HIV/AIDS; globally, there are more women than men infected. And the vast majority of them contracted it through heterosexual sex. Among young people aged 15-24, the HIV prevalence rate for young women is twice that of young men. It’s not just a ‘gay’ disease.
http://www.amfar.org/
BS- your comment should state most infected instead of affected. We are all affected.
Jack,
BS said, “most affected”, not the only ones affected.
As a group they are most affected because they are the most infected and/or their friends and partners are more likely to be infected. Therefore, they are the most affected.
Go learn some reading comprehension.
BS:
I won’t be labeled as a tin foil hat person, while you agree with Libby and her comments about the war with Iraq, and Koch Brothers insanity.
I do NOT believe in conspiracies, I’m one of the only republicans on this site that is 100% conspiracy free. I’m also one of the only moderate republicans on this site. You democrats have just become so polarized you don’t see it. It is YOUR party that is either us or them mentality I might add. I know this because even though I’m an agnostic who experimented in youth, I have not once had a republican argue with me over it or state I’m not with them. However, when I said I was against certain aspects of the democrat party, I saw how team oriented you guys are when it comes to destruction and hate. Join the team, or be ridiculed and isolated is the mentality. Most my friends became republican when they were rape victims, had abortions, and then they saw how a republican opened their arms, integrated them into positive groups, and helped them through it, and then saw how the democrat kids didn’t even care. They would go “oh, that’s terrible” and then unless you acted 100% fun and happy in their little group events, and did fun and happy things with them, you were thrown out of the group, or ignored. They don’t want to come with you to a therapy session, or talk with you about it if you need it. They don’t want to ask you if you’re suffering about why God would let that happen to you, and then reaffirm your faith if you need it.
Now that I’m done on that front: My father studied this. He made the machines and methods that diagnosed it. And you’re just a 20 something on a journal site going by his “gut”. One of the things that pissed my father off is when this happened. Basically when aids happened, since it was primarily a needle and drugs disease, there was a time when people started getting it who didn’t use needles (from sex). Most were gays. If you recall, some people started labeling black gay men, because their occurrence rate was high as well. Black gays got mad because they were being labeled because they were black, more than because they were gay. Every other gay got mad that people would ever say they were more likely to get aids than a heterosexual couple. Considering we knew it was a blood disease, and people were already talking about anal sex being a major factor, you do the math on how many gays knew that their behavior made them more at risk for aids, and gave blood anyway. When I was having sex in my younger years, and was less knowledgeable, I specifically avoided giving blood when I had an “experimentation” phase. Any gay person who doesn’t, is selfish, and is a darn fool. And yet, currently we have gay sites everywhere saying to “fight for your right!” to donate blood. Even the testing methods that exist today can say you don’t have aids several years after you have it developing in your system and are able to transmit it to others. Gays know this. They made, and have continued to make it their mission to study up, and take advantage of public ignorance. They knew they were riskier, and plain out chose to give blood because they didn’t want to admit it. Again, I live in a liberal state. I have seen the behaviors here.
Here’s fact one: Gays were saying that aids was not a gay disease.
Fact two: Gays were happy when heterosexuals started getting AIDS outside of needles (through sex). If you were paying attention during the arguments, they gleefully used it as ammo in hate filled discussions stating “SEE!!! WE AREN’T MORE LIKELY TO GET IT JUST BECAUSE WE’RE GAY!!!”. It still goes on. I don’t live in Texas or a conservative state. I live in Washington. You saw one side of it. I saw the liberal side of it. See the link below showing that they are actively trying to make gay donor blood bans removed, because as they said it “heterosexual people with multiple partners are more at risk for aids and they can donate”. To them, they don’t care about the risk, they want people to get aids so that they can prove they are equal. Heterosexual sex has been proven to be considerably less risky than anal sex. Don’t give me the “anal couples have anal sex too!”. Yes. They do. And less than 10% of those couples have anal sex on a regular basis that even comes remotely close to gay males. Gay males consistently have more partners, as well as the increased risk of anal sex. And before you say not all gay people have anal sex: The majority do. This is why the occurrence rate of aids is so incredibly high in San Francisco as just one example.
http://www.change.org/petitions/u-s-food-and-drug-administration-allow-gay-bisexual-men-to-donate-blood
Bob – I am sorry you had those experiences with Democrats in your youth. When I was still in school, I didn’t even know the difference between the parties. But being a Democrat does not make you an unfeeling person not willing to help another friend. Your whole perspective has been skewed by traumatic events in your past that make it impossible for you to be unbiased. No, Republican does not equal gay-hater or uncaring for sick & poor people, just as Democrat does not equal what you think it equals either.
People are people regardless of their party affiliation. There are good ones and bad ones. I’m sorry the only Democrats you have met have been the latter. But your experience is only a microcosm of the world. It might be beneficial if you sought some counsel for your anger issues with Democrats and others that don’t fall in line with your beliefs.
bob, do you have any links to articles about gays deliberately tainting blood supply?
Bob says: “I won’t be labeled as a tin foil hat person, while you agree with Libby and her comments about the war with Iraq, and Koch Brothers insanity.”
Nowhere on this site, have I ever agreed with Libby on Iraq on the Koch Brothers. I don’t agree with everything she says, and I only chime in once in a while. And not on those issues. But because I disagree with you I’m automatically labeled a 20-something dude who hates Republicans and has it out for all of them. Because I asked you to provide sources for your Big Gay Conspiracy theory, I’m proving my mentality of ‘us vs them’ and ‘destruction and hate.’
And then you post a wall of long-winded, rambling text. You STILL don’t provide a source verifying your theory, but once again claim, ‘they don’t care about the risk, they want people to get aids so that they can prove they are equal.”
Sweetheart, you’re making that tin foil hat person argument far better than I ever could.
You guys see where PEDOPHILIA was classified as “sexual orientation” by the American Psychiatric Assoc a few weeks ago? And then only when they caught heat for it was the classification changed. ?????
Jack,
It was merely a text error. Must be nice to be perfect all of the time. Good for the AFA to catch the error and have it corrected.
If you like that text you can keep it. LOL
It’s amazing that the Right wants to “return” to the Constitution yet stomps all over it when applying equal rights to ALL Americans.
The Constution just doesn’t protect white men, you know…
What does sexual proclivity have to do with hiring/ firing practices? Gay people have the same rights as other employees.
*Should*
Should have the same rights as other (read “straight”) people.
However, the reality is that they do face discrimination.
But everyone faces discrimination in reality.
Does that make it right? Should they? Do you discriminate against others?
It isn’t about whether or not it’s right.
Jon’s point still stands. Everyone face discrimination.
Should we pass more laws that result in companies simply taking a formula for how many whites blacks gays and asians they hire?
That’s what they do now. And if they are at the quota for whites (which they typically are, since there are more whites) then whites just can’t be accepted for employment there and that’s ok right?
Because we are protecting the gay person, who cares who gets hit in the cross fire.
You’ve got to grow up.
Bad things happen. That doesn’t mean we should go out there guns blazing firing at anything we can.
No, Bob. That’s not what they do.
If that were the case, my department of over 100 people would not be 85% white.
My best friend spent 3 years working for the EEOC. You know what? All that “you must have equal minority hiring” crap is just a myth.
In fact, the EEOC much more often than not finds in favor of the hiring company.
Yes Jon, that’s what they do.
The example listed in the class was a company that was actually sued who did lay off equal amounts of all ages/ethnicity so as not to appear to be laying off people based on those factors.
They were still able to be sued, because they didn’t keep track of the hiring/firing procedure.
But the point is, it is a real method. You simply cannot deny that.
I do deny it. I’ve been in this business for 33 years and do not know of one company that does this. Yes, you have to be careful with your Employment Practices, but there is no quota to fill. Period.
I agree should we change the law to protect the overweight and homely?
It won’t be long before hiring quotas will apply and the single, white, straight male will slip even further behind in the employment game.
So what!?!?!?
What are you saying? That white males should take priority over everyone else?
I’m a white male and I’m all for employers hiring the best candidate for the job. Personal bias (whether racial, sexual, religious, length of your hair, etc etc etc) should never play a part in hiring.
Insurance:
No. And don’t act like a condescending jerk.
Have you taken insurance classes?
Do you know the method that corporations take in order to ensure they have no discrimination law suits?
They hire equal amounts of blacks, asians, whites, etc. What he is saying, is that many companies have a “quota” on whites (and others) in order to make the appearance that they aren’t discriminating, rather than hire based on the candidate’s skills.
You are eager to try to find people who are what fit inside of your narrow mind’s concept of a villain. There aren’t many people out there like that as you believe, and the reason you believe it is actually you need a villain, likely because you aren’t a very good person yourself.
Yeah, I’ve taken a couple in my 35+ years in the industry – both on the company side and the DOI side. Believe it or not, at the DOI we were always told to offer open positions THE BEST CANDIDATE! If, and only if, 2 candiddates were equal, then we looked at minority as a factor. AND there were no quotas – even at the state.
I only use quota for lack of a better word.
No company has an actual quota sheet.
They do, for a fact, try to avoid disparity in the ethnicity.
Moron.
And no, you have not taken classes. This is one of the first things we went over in employment practices liability. What they said was that if you have a disparity, then you better have in place a method to prove the white candidate was better than the black.
Their commentary though, was it was simply a better action to take to avoid disparity, and most corporations take that route.
Jeez, Bob: you hurt my feelings.
It’s hard to get past being called “moron,” “condescending jerk,” and “not a very good person” to respond to your otherwise superb insight.
I think what you are really saying is that at the class you took, the teacher told you that you’d better document a “reason” that the white guy is a better candidate so you can hire him…wink, wink. Just a guess…because, as you know, I didn’t take the class.
You probably taught the class.
Oh. And I meant that as a compliment. :-)
Cry me a river.
And yes. I know the hiring process. Next to no firm is told flat out to hire more blacks or less blacks.
When it comes to layoffs, in a corporation with 3000 people, let’s just say that blacks have a larger lay off rate because they didn’t attend a more prestigious college (statistically, there are states where this is true.) so the company ends up laying off all those black employees, and keeping the white employees who attended the more prestigious one.
You don’t think they keep a larger chunk of the lower prestigious college graduates, than they would keep of the whites from lower college graduates? If you don’t, you’re lying to yourself.
By the by: Being called a moron, when you’re being a moron, and being called a condescending jerk, after your reply to a guy who NEVER said a racist comment was to imply he was racist, and being told you’re not a very good person, are not the worst things to be told.
Clearly, you are used to being told yes and what you want to hear.
Bob – those can be the worst things to be told. Especially by a complete stranger. You go around slinging out insults like a pez dispenser and then rail against others (Democrats) that you say do the same thing. You did call him a name and you did insult him. At least own it instead of trying to minimize it.
You ridicule and then complain against being ridiculed yourself (see your post above.) That is the epitomy of hypocrisy.
bob, just an anecdotal aside here. When the home health agency I worked for had to lay off people, it strictly based on longevity. Not what college you attended, not how much experience you have overall, just how long you worked for that agency. (I was subbing for the HR person, so I had to prepare the data for the executive director)
Considering a white girl sued the University of Texas over admissions practices, I think it is safe to say there is no guarantee against discrimination suits.
I’ve been in charge of hiring (thankfully for only a couple of years) and I can say no one ever suggested I hire the minority or the white kid. It was a very subjective process because I was hiring for an entry level position that had no requirements. The point was always the best fit. Where I am now, I don’t have to worry about it, but I will say our boss (who happens to be a white male) does his best to hire the most qualified person. That’s all anyone can do. If the best candidate is gay, then they shouldn’t be skipped over because they’re gay. That’s what ENDA is about.
What a stupid and ignorant comment. It’s people like you who perpetuate stupidity and prejudice……and in my opinion don’t even deserve to be a part of these United States.
Yes, the poor downtrodden white male may be endangered of not earning more than everyone. Oh, the horrors.
LOL!!!
Celitica,
This is a real problem.
The downtrodden white male receives less support, and is often not hired as a result of firms trying to have equal amounts of all colors in the firm.
When there are less blacks than whites, and there are equal amounts at a large corporation, this means more whites are turned away as a proportion. This same occurrence happens at schools, with scholarships, etc.
I don’t care about past suffrage. That in no way makes it ok to treat the white male like trash. It is just a fact.
So, your blanket statement is that the black is not as good a candidates for the job as a white? Right?
I made no such statement.
My statement is that if there are less black people than whites.
And the corporation is simply hiring just as many whites and blacks in the corporation to avoid getting sued.
Then they are specifically turning down enormous amounts of white people simply because they are white which is not fair.
Grow up, you feeble minded child.
Corporations don’t keep track of minority quotas. That’s a ridiculous allegation. And even if they did, they would have to do it based on the demographics for their area – not equal parts black, white, Asian, etc.
Yes, they do.
Not all corporations, but a heck of a lot.
No, they don’t. They may document their files when interviewing minorities that are not subsequently hired, but they don’t have a quota or count.
Libby,
I have seen the example in class.
Business have, and still do, take the layoff/hire equal amounts method.
Quota is probably not the appropriate word.
Yes, they do.
I’m getting a little sick of your knee jerk comments. I don’t do that. Ever. You didn’t even look this up. You’re going based off the top of your head of “that would never happen! It didn’t happen at my work!”. I saw the case studies Libby. The firm was still able to be sued, due to not having an adaquette hiring/layoff tracking procedure. But they clearly took a method that many companies took not long ago.
Bob – It’s not a knee jerk reaction. I have taken many, many classes on this very subject and have insured thousands of clients in my 33 years.
Anyone can be sued for anything. That is why we sell Employment Practices liability insurance. Yes, you have to be careful when documenting hiring, firing, and disciplinary actions – but I repeat, THERE ARE NO QUOTAS.
All the company has to do is have a legitimate process and document that process through any hiring or promotions.
During my weird career path, I have not seen any companies that worry about hiring a set number of any race. I may not have taken any classes on selling EPL, but I have taken classes at grad school and CPE groups.
I have not heard of preferential hiring. Every class or conference I’ve attended has stressed the process. If the process is created to hire the best candidate and you follow that process from start to finish, you’re protected. You only have problems if you deviate from the process to EXCLUDE someone you don’t like (for whatever reason).
ENDA may not seem necessary to you, but no one should be excluded from a position based on a trait or characteristic that has nothing to do with the job.
Libby,
Stop using the word quota. I used it once, for lack of a better word.
These companies do pay attention, especially on layoffs, to if there is an imbalance of blacks being laid off for example. And if there is, they double check their documentation.
AND OR re-consider the amount of black people they are laying off. Statistically, sooner or later you will coincidentally lay off more blacks. But it certainly won’t look that way in court. They do pay attention if that balance is off. And then they specifically modify it.
To say they don’t, is insane. It does happen.
Yeah, and I said bin Laden was found in Afghanistan ONCE, yet you still keep bringing it up. Why don’t you start acting like you want everyone else to act?
And don’t try backpedaling now. You were not specifically talking just about lay-offs.
“The downtrodden white male receives less support, and is often not hired as a result of firms trying to have equal amounts of all colors in the firm. When there are less blacks than whites, and there are equal amounts at a large corporation, this means more whites are turned away as a proportion. This same occurrence happens at schools, with scholarships, etc.”
“And the corporation is simply hiring just as many whites and blacks in the corporation to avoid getting sued. Then they are specifically turning down enormous amounts of white people simply because they are white which is not fair.”
We live in a litigous society. As long as you are documenting your hiring, firing, and performance improvement processes you can protect yourself WHEN sued. Nothing will keep you from being sued if someone feels they’ve been discriminated against. Again, that’s why we sell EPLI. For the defense coverage.
Again, no numbers, head-counting, or quotas.
Yes, everyone should be equal, but with so very much messed up in this country, is this really what the senate needs to be working on? I can think of so many higher priority items.
If you were gay it would be important to you.
Gays are not discriminated against any more than your average person.
There are only two remaining class/types of people that society considers ok to discriminate against, and neither are gays.
I won’t even list the primary to you, because the primary one, the majority of people refuse to accept how much of a problem it is.
The secondary, well, is republicans. Which you just won’t accept, because you’ve never lived as one.
I was a registered Republican for over 10 years. Again, another instance where you don’t know what you’re talking about.
And since when are Republicans discriminated against. Look at all of them on this blog. If anyone’s beind discriminated against on here it’s liberals. You’re ridiculous!
And I quote:
“Only a SC redneck would compare gay people to rapists and child molesters. Don’t they educate you hicks down there?”
This is not including your commentary to do with no republican alternative for the PPACA
NO alternative?
Patients Choice Act of 2009.
This coupled with medicare expansion part D.
Republicans want people to die?
Paul Ryan commercial, wheeling a granny off a cliff.
Republicans are for corporations? Heard of it much?
Then do some research on the preferential tax code methods employed by democrats regarding green energy, and manufacturing (both good in their own right, but all corporations need a lower rate).
Discrimination does exist against republicans to the degree, that even if an alternate plan is put forth by them, it “doesn’t exist”.
Discrimination exists to the degree, that even if republicans pass gay marriage laws, that protect churches as well, they are against gays.
Discrimination exists to the degree, that even when Bush W passes health revisions, he is against healthcare. Even when Reagan passes a requirement for treatment, republicans want people to not get healthcare. And then that is blamed on the inefficiency in the insurance industry. Considering $8 billion per year comes from that, I doubt a multi trillion dollar industry needs to get those people insured to become profitable enough to expand risk pool.
The majority public is against republican, without regard for facts.
They are discriminatory.
Side comment: When you are called a socialist it is not discrimination.
When you are told you are sipping on cool aid, it is not discrimination.
You’re being called that for having an idiotic opinion, and for not thinking logically.
The insults the right have thrown at you on here, do not resemble southern hick. At all.
Being called an idiot is not a form of discrimination, when someone presents you with facts.
Go to school as a republican. See what happens. That is discrimination.
There are not crowds of people hating gays. There are crowds seeking out the gay hating crowds. And when you see one, they are isolated, insulted, etc.
GO. BACK. TO. SCHOOL. Pay attention to your kids. My brother was SUSPENDED nearly EXPELLED for writing that a character in a book who decided to swim out to sea to commit suicide was a poor decision to make ethically, morally, and degraded the character.
It was considered a “social hot topic”.
Go in public and yell at the top of your lungs: I HATE GAY MARRIAGE!!
Then go yell at the top of your lungs I LOVE GAY MARRIAGE!!!
WHICH WOULD YOU FEEL YOU HAD THE SUPPORT OF EVERYONE YELLING?
You’re a complete fool if you feel that liberals have harder life than republicans.
We always have to justify our beliefs to your side, least be called a religious zealot, a hick, or prejudiced, racist, against “equality” etc.
By the by: I’ll say this again, you were NOT a republican.
If you were, societal pressure got to you big time. As seen in your ignorant, often factless, commentary.
Wow, Bob. Rant much?
Discrimination? Pish posh. When the Republican House opposes any and all bills regarding gay rights, their position on gays is clear. To call them out on it is only pointing out their position. It’s not discrimination.
The same with Healthcare. Republicans had many, many chances to put forth healthcare reform when they had a majority. They did nothing. To say they do not want equal healthcare for all is not discrimination. It’s fact.
And yes, dear Bob, I was a Republican raised in a military household with both parents registered Republicans. My mother is now a registered Democrat along with me and my sister. Societal pressure has nothing to do with it. Republicans are more considered the norm than us far-out hippy, dippy liberals. That’s how we are portrayed. Either that or we’re no good, lazy, deadbeats with our hand out for everyone else’s money.
Grow up. You’re no more discriminated against because of your political party than I am.
And the SC redneck comment was specifically targeted at Jack-Ass and not all people from SC. Learn to read.
Libby,
Not a rant, all relevant facts.
Moving on: They did not have a super majority. Your party did not vote for the patients choice act. They didn’t vote for just about anything Bush put forward except for children insurance aspect, and medicare part d.
Your party had a near super majority when they put through what they wanted.
Don’t tell me that those plans didn’t pass because of republicans.
Let’s stay on point: Would the patient’s choice act, or would it not, have been better than Obama’s plan?
And why didn’t it pass?
If your answer is it is the republican’s fault, you’re wrong.
By the by: So then, you stopped being republican, because you were tired of being labeled. I do oh so love being right about that. I’ve said it before, and you confirmed it below.
Did too many repubwicans call you a big bad lazy person? Awww poor baby. Is that harder than being called a racist, homophobe? No. Is that harder than being told you want people to die? No. You took the easier route.
More democrats are lazy, it’s why they vote entitlement every time. Deal with it. It is a VERY serious problem in this state, women getting pregnant, and either collecting from the state or a boyfriend. Or guys living off their girlfriends. They are democrat. EVERY time. It’s just the way it is.
The SC comment was directed at your opinion that SC people are hicks. It was not just the jack ass.
I am not more discriminated against democrats.
I just know math and numbers. A few years back I talked about the real pressures women have with abortions and how to direct it. Then both Switzerland and England did paper studies regarding the pressures women face. The two primary reasons matching what I noted: Not wanting to be stuck with a mate, and not being ready. It was obvious to start with, if you paid attention to democrat women (abortion supporters). It was not so obvious if you paid attention to extreme liberal women or media (It’s about our body!! = Lie.)
Everything I have said is true of democrats, is true.
Everything you have said about republicans, is not.
Bob says –
“So then, you stopped being republican, because you were tired of being labeled. I do oh so love being right about that. I’ve said it before, and you confirmed it below.” – Wrong. Again. I was never labeled for being a republican. Unlike you, I don’t feel a need to go around shouting my political views to anyone in earshot. I think my statement was that republicans are considered more the norm. Not Democrats, as you have confirmed with your diatribe about how lazy we are and how we do not care for our friends in need and etc. ad nauseum.
“Did too many repubwicans call you a big bad lazy person? Awww poor baby. Is that harder than being called a racist, homophobe? No. Is that harder than being told you want people to die? No. You took the easier route.” Again, no. I’ve never been a big, bad lazy person since I left home and started working for a living at age 17. And I don’t label all Republicans homophobe and racist. Only those that make it perfectly clear they are on this blog. That is not discriminating. It is identifying their mind-set and calling them on it. Much as you feel you are entitled to by calling people Moron, Child, Idiot, etc. ad nauseum.
And finally “The SC comment was directed at your opinion that SC people are hicks. It was not just the jack ass.” – If you will notice, the comment was pasted right under his hideous post comparing rapists and pedophiles to homosexuals. Jackass IS from SC, he acts like a hick, and I had a legitimate question about his education since I spent many formative years in NC which is not much better. Fortunately for me I made it out of NC or might be just as ignorant as he.
I, too, used to be republican. Both my parents were republicans, even when we lived in democrate states. My parents (retired Marine dad, btw) have been democrats for the last decade or so.
I haven’t seen any republicans discriminated against. What is your definition of discrimination? (calling someone names is not discrimination in my mind. just low class)
*democrat* states
JW:
Discrimination is when someone ignores your ideas simply because they have an R before them.
Or when people claim you want people to die. Even when Reagan put in place the mandated care, Bush W expanded insurance for children and medicare part d, etc.
Or when people say you didn’t push civil rights, even when more of your party voted for it as a percentage, and your party made the 1957 civil rights bill.
The republicans are never given credit, and are constantly blamed for every form of hate, discrimination, social injustice, or economic issue. Try to say it happens to democrats: No. It does not. I can list examples all day, you go ahead and list yours. Then we will weigh which happens more, and which is more severe.
People love medicare, and social security. They vote based on it. Why not the 401k and the Roth IRA? Why were they against the SRA Bush proposed? Because he was a republican. Look at history. Pay attention to kids. Pay attention to college graduates. Always democrat leaning. There is something that needs to be stopped.
I don’t doubt that you’re a moderate. Even though I think you’re far too emotional on abortion. You’re not a jerk either.
Something you might want to look at by the way, just if you’re interested in learning more about why I’m republican:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/abortion-and-suicide-the-grim-stastics
Read up, “care” no matter what. You’re not protecting women. You’re harming them and allowing them to believe it’s about “their body” as to why they have an abortion as you said recently.
Recently when I got pissed at you and Libby for saying I didn’t understand what women went through, I’m the only one on this site that DOES understand what women go through. It is why I cussed you both out, it’s also why I’m against the democrats. This affects women. Look at the suicide rates. That is just suicide, not depression. You might think me over the top, but I OVER react. Anyone who over reacts, is reacting to something that was not right. What you said, was not right to men, their pressures when they learn they are having a child, and was completely selfish against them. I went dumb for an hour. I could not speak, when I first heard I was having a kid. My wife is amazing. A great woman. But even she told me that if I had not wanted the kid at the time, she would have had the baby anyway (and at that point we would have split up). I was painfully aware of that fact, and it is part of the reason I want dumb. It is YOU that does not understand what happens when as a male you learn you will be a father, linked for life, to the mother, even if she fails you will have to pay for her life as well. You deal with just the pressure of the kid. We deal with the pressure of you being some stranger who could destroy our entire life.
Women don’t have abortions because they feel their body changing. They have abortions because of pressure of having a child. Same as men. So us men decide for the same reason as you. More interestingly, us men care more about you. Because when you say it’s your body, we just shut up. When we say we don’t want a kid, you have it anyway, despite our inability to raise the kid. How fair do you find that? While being told we don’t understand the pressure? It’s condescending, and absolutely abhorrent.
These movements HAVE to be stopped.
Bob – I went dumb when I read your post. You’re the ONLY ONE that understands how women feel? What an assinine thing to say.
And again, you take one instance that happened in your life how many years ago and become fanatical about it. Guess what, Bob. NOT EVERYONE IS YOU. I know plenty of women that have had abortions and know they made the right choice and have NEVER regretted it.
Bottom line, you don’t want babies don’t have unprotected sex. If you do have unprotected sex, you as a man, are in for a situation over which you have no control. Deal with it.
bob, I don’t really think misrepresenting the source of a solution is discrimination. That may be annoying or borderline idea theft, but it is not discrimination.
Ignoring ideas COULD be discrimination, but I’m not convinced.
Another weird fact about my unusual life, I grew up where white people were scarce. Very scarce. I suffered from harrassment (until I stood up for myself-marine brat, remember?). I was NOT discriminated against, however. I know the difference.
However, calling someone names is low class, and can rise to the level of harrassment or even escalate to violence. That is still not discrimination. I don’t approve of harrassment any more than discrimination. I just don’t want the issue of ‘discrimination’ to get lost in the conversation (well, what passes for conversation on IJ).
Let’s table the abortion talk in this particular thread. I understand what you said. I actually do have further comments and questions, but not here. Not in the thread about ENDA.
Yeah, we need to shut the government down again.
Or have a vote on the PPACA Law for the 40-somethingth time.
Yes. We do need that.
Or rather a vote on the patient’s choice act, or the CBO 2009 plan.
The democrats used a super majority with no bi partisan support to pass the PPACA. If it didn’t get even 5% of the republican vote, it didn’t deserve to pass.
Like it or not, at least 25% of the population to 30% are republicans. So they get a say in the government. If not more than 5 republicans supported the plan, it didn’t deserve to pass.
Your iron fist rule type of team mind set is astounding.
Wah!!! Cry baby. If Republicans want a bigger say in government they need to put up some candidates worth voting for. It’s not our fault your guys can’t get elected.
Libby,
We do have candidates. What we need is the end of your “with us” or against all minorities mindset.
Your party is a dominator. Always has been. Always will be.
Slavery. Aggregation. Segregation was just 40 years ago. Your party changed image, not tactics.
Well, I suggest your party do the same. That is if you want to have a say in government. It ain’t happenin’ any other way.
You suggest my party dominates in similar fashion to slavery and segregation?
Very nice.
Being on the winning side doesn’t make you right.
Bob – PLEASE take a reading comprehension class. I am getting so tired of having you unravel your twisted reasoning behind my every post.
You said ” Your party changed image, not tactics.” It was the last sentence to your post. I then replied, “I suggest your party do the same.”
Get it?
Why is it hate speech or a hate crime when it’s done to blacks,homosexuals,muslims,etc but not others? Serious question!
You should know the answer because you’re full of hate.
I love you Libby.
Please don’t.
Hahahaha, ok now I like Jack.
This reminds me of when Planet said you and I appeared to be in a relationship due to how we fought.
Hilarious.
Bob, i think libby is really attracted to me but she’s scared to admitt it in front of her lib friends on here. I bet if we ran in to each other in public she would be on me like white on rice. You know that opposites attract thing they always talk about. And i can say white on rice cause i’m a honkie!
Yeah, Jack, you caught on to me. All that talk about homos and honkies is really turning me on.
Serious answer – I define hate speech as, “bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or any member of such a group.” So, if it’s done to caucasions (which I am guessing you might be suggesting), I’d call it hate speech. Happy to help!
I bet you were calling for the resignation of Bill Maher this morning……crickets. Did you see the hate directed at Conan O’Brien this weekend after a little tweet about Muslims and crickets on the left about Bill Maher? Hypocrits as usual.
I did not see it but did just go to The Blaze to take a loot at it. I couldn’t find it, only Conan’s tasteless tweet. And, the hilariously racist and prejudiced commentary from the bloggers below the tweet, too. Bill’s employment status is between he and his employer. Let me know when Bill commits a crime and we can have the conversation.
Cap- there’s your problem. It took me one google search to find Bill’s rant. You do that much research on all of your opinions?
You made my point for me about “hate speech”. You get it yet???
You see the left calls it hate speech or a hate crime when it’s against their opinions only. We call it free speech regardless. I don’t care if Bill keeps his job or not. Paula Dean gets fired for say N 10 years ago.
Do you see the double standard? Of course you don’t.
It is hate speech, Jack. Hate is hate, whether it’s towards blacks, gays, or white people. You seem to have alot stored up for anyone that is not just like you.
Libby, then why is it that people on the right pay a higher price for it? Why is it that black on white murder is not reported in the same way?
I agree hate is hate when it comes to murder,violent crimes. But speech is opinion and free speech is guaranteed regardless of your opinion.
Bill didn’t get fired because that is between he and his employer. Paula Dean got fired because that is between her and her employer. Has nothing to do with a political affiliation. Again, did Bill commit a hate crime? If yes, then I say he should be prosecuted. No double standard there. Perhaps you should famaliarize yourself with the definition.
Is Bill’s rant from last year? I found something from last year, but nothing current.
“Libby, then why is it that people on the right pay a higher price for it?”
People on the right pay a higher price for hate speech? While I question your source for such an outrageous statement, if that’s true it does not speak well for these people on the right to which you refer.
And what do you mean by “Why is it that black on white murder is not reported in the same way? ” How should each be reported?
If you dont already know the answer to your “serious question” than I just lost a lot of faith in peoples IQ’s and our education system.
Got ins- whats your answer?
Don’t you just love the tolerance the the tolerant people on the left have? It’s just so hmm….tolerant. All you bigot’s have a good weekend…ya hear!
Wow, they say this will help millions. I didn’t know millions of gay people are being fired or not promoted because of their sexual preference. I work with a few gay people and some are above me in the company, and I mean way above me, and some are below. None have ever been fired in the long time I’ve worked here. Obviously some have been promoted way up and it’s not a secret of their orientation. A few have left on their own for bigger and better jobs. So this will affect millions, I question that. Just another law people can use to sue over, that’s all it is. This bill was probably started by a law firm because they wanted some more teeth into their lawsuits vs the average discrimination that anyone can face.
You question it based off of anecdotal evidence? I hope all of your opinions aren’t formed on that basis. The fact is that no one should be fired or not hired because of their sexual orientation and in some states it is still legal for that to happen. It doesn’t matter if it affects millions of people or one-it shouldn’t happen at all.
AE,
I’d like to see your evidence that it will affect millions of people. Show me because I haven’t seen the numbers. So we need to pass another law when we already have discrimination laws in place. So tomorrow should we pass a no Asian discrimination law, the day after a Caucasian law, then the day after that a Hispanic law? That’s like the government adding a law that says, no going over the speed limit law. We already have a speed limit law, but I guess that would be a way for you to get two tickets (one for speeding and another for going over the speed limit). Like I said, this was probably started by lawyers so they can reference two laws when someone is fired, vs the one we all use.
The current discrimination laws already “protects applicants and employees from discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin. Religious discrimination includes failing to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices where the accommodation does not impose undue hardship.” (http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/posters/pdf/eeopost.pdf) That should cover your concern about Asians, Caucasians and Hispanics.
This law just adds another category of people who can’t be discriminated against just because others might disagree with their sexuality.
And a quick googling came up with this to support the ‘millions’ of people that ENDA will help:
“Because many people are not “out,” this provides additional counting difficulty. One survey of LGB employees found that 23.8% of lesbian and gay people were not out to anyone at work, and 48.8% of bisexual people were not out to anyone at work
One 2011 study found an estimated 9 million, or approximately 4% of the U.S. population is lesbian, gay, or bisexual, and .3% is transgender.
Based on approximately 150 surveys, the founder of Witeck-Combs Communications estimates that 6.7% of Americans are LGBT.”
(http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-workplace-issues)
Like many people of different races, colors and religions, many LGBT Americans will need to invoke this protection. Many work for companies that don’t have issues with their sexuality/gender. But, ENDA will help make sure that those who don’t work for such companies won’t be harassed or discriminated against due to their sexuality.
I’m waiting for the transgender bathrooms at my office. I may feel like a man one day and a woman the next. Of course that depends on who’s using the ladies…you know what i mean.
Pig.
I threw that one out there just for you Libby. I already have a transgender bathroom in my office. It’s call a 1 person bathroom. You see thats where this kinda of crap will take us. Libby imagine your grandson or grandaughter going into a public restroom say at a rest area on the interstate. All of a sudden you look and see a person of the opp sex going in behind them. Whats going thru your mind at that point?
You’re clueless (a nice word for ignorant.) Transgender means they are no longer of the opposite sex. That’s the “trans” part in case you were wondering.
And once again, you are comparing gay people to pedophiles. Clueless, just clueless.
Libby fail- it can also be their state of mind until the sex change
Newflash homophobe, transgenders in transition think and act like their opposite sex. They have ALWAYS thought and acted like their opposite sex. The surgical part is only cosmetic. Really, you are pathetic with your backwoods mentality. Read a book.
So if you go into a restroom Libby and the woman next to you has facial hair..you know kinda 5 oclock shadow type stuff..how do you know its a transgender?
I think I’d tell him he’s in the wrong restroom. A transgender male to woman wouldn’t be caught dead in public with facial hair.
So they shave in the car on long road trips? Get otta here. That’s very transgender of them. You crack me up, no pun intended. I love you Libby. Are you married?
BTW – do you know any gay or transgender people? Or do you just run them out of town on a rail?
We stone them, no wait thats Muslims.
We let them in SC but we require it be stamped on their DL so when the cops pull them over or they go to vote we know who we are dealing with….ya know what i mean.
You guys are too easy to get fired up. I love it when the hate comes out so clear for someone with a diff opinion. You sit there and call it hate speech when you are so filled with it. If it were not so sad it would be funny.
I don’t hate you, Jack. I feel sorry for you.
Libby- I feel the hate from here so don’t try the feel sorry crap.
I don’t hate you. I hate how you think. You have slurred almost every minority there is. Now either you’re a hopeless bigot or just a troll. Either way, you’re not worth my time.
there,there libby. I think we have established everyone is a bigot in their own way. Admitting it is the 1st step. Once you admit it then you can use words like craka,honkie,bigot in your office without fear. Come on say it with me..HONKIE at the top of your lungs. Feels good!
I’m not Libby so I am not answering for her. Though, I will say the scenario you drew out is exactly what happens in some foreign countries and it isn’t an issue (all sex bathrooms). Just people answering the call of nature. If it’s privacy you seek, close the door. If you are worried about the safety of a child, attend the bathroom with them.
Cap- you ever had a homo hit on you while standing at a urinal? Do you have children or grandchildren?
I guess me assuming you are a man with the name Captain Planet is sexist, but lets go there anyway.
No, but I bet you have.
You’re awfully hung-up on bathrooms and bodily functions.
libby why don’t you let the person answer a question instead of injecting your feelings every chance you get.
Must have been the guy on the other side of the stall when conservative Sen Craig was tap dancing looking to score in a air port bathroom
So, a man found you attractive and hit on you. Were you forced to reciprocate? If not, then what’s the problem? Be happy someone thinks you’re attractive enough to try to get your attention. You don’t have to do anything about it. Just say “thanks, but not interested,’ and walk away. No harm, no foul.
I don’t understand why this is an issue.
BS- John 3:18 offends a lot of people. Why is that?
How can there still be all these societal issues in the South with all this Bible Thumping? Is this the chemical reaction you get from drinking strychnine and getting bit by a rattlesnake?
Jack,
John 3:18 “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
I’m sorry. I’m not sure I understand how this verse relates to this discussion? Am I looking at the right one?
When you or someone else see’s the cross in a school or government building or any government property are you forced to reciprocate? Can’t you say “thanks,but not interested” and walk away. No harm,no foul?
Jack – aren’t you the one crying about free speech? Yet you wish to censor me? I’ll post whatever I want, whenever I want cuz this here’s the daggum United States of America, goddammit.
Now we are getting somewhere….go ahead let that hate out a little louder…yell HONKIE,CRAKA,BIGOT real loud.
You are comparing apples to shoes. Crosses in schools or government buildings have absolutely nothing to do with a man hitting on another man, and how you deal with either.
But since you mentioned it, personally, I don’t care about crosses in secular schools or government buildings. As long as they allow other religions expressions to be displayed as well, if requested, I’m fine with them.
Jack – you need to read the part in the Constitution about separation of church and state.
WTH are you talking about? Why would I yell those things out loud? Maybe you think I am a minority because of my ideals. You would be wrong. Blonde, blue eyed, caucasian American female born and bred.
I could tell you are white, that was easy. On top of that only white people can yell honkie,craka,bigot and laugh about it…right. Anyone else says it and it’s HATE speech remember. So say it loud and proud honkie!
Man I miss messing with you libs when I go home to my white priviledged neighborhood every night. Honkies!
OK. So you are a troll.
trolls have feelings too :)
Jack,
Never had a gay guy hit on me at the urinal. At a downtown bar in the beer garden, yes. With my wife sitting there, so he knew he had no shot. You know what, didn’t matter. I could care less. So, someone found me attractive – great! Unfortunately for him, I wasn’t interested because I am not gay. I do have some gay friends and a relative, though. You might find it crazy, but gay isn’t contagious. Oh, and the same sexual activity that happens in a gay bedroom happens in a straight one, too.
I have 2 daughters.
Jack, you aren’t really Bob Vander Plaats or Rick Santorum, are you?
Jack, yes, we know you mean. Even people who think they are normal have their kinky pervy sides.
The difference Celtica is choosing not to act on them.Free will is a gift and a curse depending on how we use it. I know we all have those weak moments and periods of time in our life when we act out. Been there,done that. But society has lost it’s way and there will be a heavy price to pay. Our children and grandchildren will pay with loss of freedom,liberty,wealth.
No, Jack, that is not the difference. The difference is that you even think of it. Normal people do not. Only those who think they are normal (but who aren’t really normal) think of it.
Are you on meds?
Celtica- i forgot to ask you, what are you wearing? LOL
A slime proof raincoat…
:-)
too bad monica lewinsky didn’t have that on, there would not have been any DNA
All play and no work makes Jack a pervy boy…
jack and bob are definitely leading in the dislike category. I can understand why for jack since it appears he got his education out behind the barn. For bob, I’m perplexed since he has spent his life taking courses and his father worked on the machine that diagnosed aids.
Gay people don’t try to spread HIV or attack you or your children in bathrooms.
The term for those people is “psycopath” and they could be of any gender, race, sexual preference, religion or political affiliation.
What education would that be justa?
Although I do not feel that employers should discriminate against anyone why is it that in our politically correct world that a employer should not be able to choose who they desire? I know that I for one would probably choose not to do business with a company that had employee’s who were openly gay or transgender. By the same token I would not want to do business with a company with heterosexual employees who were openly displaying their sexual life.
We are all who we are but we do not need to flaunt it in the workplace.
Why Not,
I would venture to guess you don’t believe people need to hide their ethnicity, right? (I have the vision of that SNL skit when Eddie Murphy goes caucasion). Why do you ask gays or transgenders to hide who they are? And, if they did hide themselves and you did business with them, wouldn’t you still be doing business with a gay person or a transgender? Open or not, it doesn’t change the fact you did business with someone who I imagine you may feel is “icky”.
Should I tell my friend Tony over here to quit being so openly black?