Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sharron Angle: I would refuse money from company that supports gay rights

Sharron Angle has taken some extreme positions, but this one is remarkable even by her standards: She said on a candidate questionnaire that she would refuse political contributions from a private company that backs equal rights for gays and extends benefits to partners of gay employees.

Angle laid out this position in a candidate questionnaire that she filled out for the Washington-based Government is not God PAC.

In question 35A of the questionnaire, Angle was asked:

Would you refuse PAC money from those who are fundamentally opposed to your views on social issues?

Angle checked the Yes box. The questionnaire then asked:

In reference to question 35A, Intel Corporation supports "equal rights for gays" and offers benefits to "partners" of homosexual employees. Would you refuse funds from this corporate PAC?

Angle again checked the Yes box.

The questionnaire was first obtained by the Associated Press, which did a story about it without noting this question and answer from Angle. The AP story noted other eyebrow-raising answers in the questionnaire, such as her support for clergy making political endorsements.

A copy of the full questionnaire is right here. The answer to the question on gays was first noted in passing by Nevada Journalist Jon Ralston.

Angle's position is striking. It's one thing to oppose gay marriage, or to oppose equal rights for gays. It's quite another to refuse to accept campaign contributions from a company that chooses of its own free will to support gay rights or extend benefits to partners of its own employees.

By Greg Sargent  |  August 6, 2010; 11:54 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Republicans , gay rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: GOP: Bad jobs numbers prove Dems have lost control of the wheel
Next: Dems caught in trap of their own making?

Comments

I would think you would be happy that she's refusing campaign contributions. She probably would refuse them from NAMBLA too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

The so-called "Culture Wars" are back.

This is exactly what the right does when it's out of power: an end run around the law and principles that they otherwise attack through official channels.

They have two positions: govern in such a manner that it loots the system and wrecks governance as a force in people's lives; or, attack anyone who is in any way different from themselves.

Shorter right wing: libertarian rules for me, conform to the status quo (circa 1950) for you.

Anyone else getting tired of this?

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 6, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone else getting tired of this?"

Tired of Angle stories? Hell yes!

Posted by: sbj3 | August 6, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

BG - God yes I'm getting tired of it.

I'm also tired of the constant xenophobia, nativism and out-and-out racism spewing from the rightwing.

Posted by: nisleib | August 6, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI, are you saying that Judge Walker is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy then?!

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

God forbid that Republicans actually stand on principles against child molesters.

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Let me ask you, Greg: do YOU think that government is God?

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Clawrence - Child molesters? What are you talking about?

Oh, never mind, don't feed the troll.

Posted by: nisleib | August 6, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

nisleib, NAMBLA is a group of homosexual men who advocate sex with minors, otherwise known as child molestation.

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

The thing about this lunatic... religious freedom is not just some new-fangled law that they want to modify...

It is firmly established in the FIRST AMENDMENT of the Constitution.

Case in point, this is great stuff.

>>>>>>>

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

>>>>>>>

Why does Sharron Angle hate the Constitution?

Why does Sharron Angle disagree with Thomas Jefferson?

Why does Sharron Angle want to change one of the founding principles of this country more than 200 YEARS after the founding of this great land?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 6, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, she doesn't. She DOES hate child molesters though.

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I know what NAMBLA is, but how is that relevant?

Posted by: nisleib | August 6, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

And btw, terms like "EXTREMIST" and "RADICAL" get tossed around quite a bit these days...

...but what other sentiment could possible be more extreme than the desire to go against precedent or modify principles that were established in our founding document, as I said, a document that has survived more than 200 years of progress, differences and even Civil War?

What could possibly be more extreme than wanting to modify these central principles of our country?

Her positions are definitively extremist.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 6, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"I would think you would be happy that she's refusing campaign contributions. She probably would refuse them from NAMBLA too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 12:01 PM"

Sir or Ma'am,

Why are you equating child molestation with gay rights? You do know that's a false equivalence, don't you?

Posted by: wiccan | August 6, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

She us a Christian Reconstructionist. They are the US equivalent of the Taliban in terms of thier desire to take over and make everyone conform to their particular faith.

Posted by: Mimikatz | August 6, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Since when have Republicans taken a stance against The Vatican Run Global Pedophilia Protection Operations?


Answer; NEVER.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 6, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Why does Sharron Angle put HER God above the Constitution, which EXPLICITLY, and in no uncertain terms, states that government should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?

The implication is that the Constitution is inherently flawed.

The implication is that the First Amendment is inherently wrong.

The implication is that Sharron Angle doesn't just have strong opinions based on her religious beliefs, but that HER opinions are more important than the First Amendment and thus that HER opinions are more important than the 40 Americans who signed the Constitution and the conventions of 13 states which ratified it.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 6, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

No, wiccan, think of NAMBLA as "extremist" if you must. Some homosexual obviously are child molesters (since they are in prison for it) and some homosexuals never once act out on such thoughts, but it’s certainly a continuum of deviant sexual behavior.

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, do you think that government is God?

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Liam - Remember Jeff Gannon / Jim Guckert? How many times did he stay overnight at the white house?

And Clawrence, how goes that wide stance?

Clawrence must be busy texting pages to find out the length of their reproductive organs, right?

FYI - I'm joking here, but saying that homosexuals are child molesters is stupid, especially for a rightwing know-nothing like clawrence. Every time I hear a righwinger talk about how awful homosexuality is I expect to find out in year or two that the Republican in question is a big time "friend of Dorothy." And usually my expectations are spot on.

Posted by: nisleib | August 6, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Sharron Obtuse Angle supports The Church Of Scientology.

Will she refuse contributions from all those who do not support The Cult Of Xenu?

Sharon Obtuse Angle is against Fluoridation.

Will she refuse contributions from anyone who drinks fluoridated water?

Posted by: Liam-still | August 6, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

nisleib, why are you feeding the "troll"?

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

O&O for the weekend. Going to the beach with no phone and no laptop. Have a good one, all.


PS
Don't feed the troll.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 6, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

nisleib,

Since Clawrence12 is against gay marriages, because some gay people may be pedophiles, then he would have to be against heterosexual marriages for the very same reason, and also against the ordination of any catholic priests.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 6, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Why does Sharrron Angle support equal protection for gays and lesbians....but only until they are born?

Sharrron says it herself. She opposes abortion for ANYONE. Even those impregnated by rape and incest get her demand to give birth because EVERY pregnancy must be brought to birth. This is her lemons to lemonade words of support for rape victims.

But after being born from ANY heterosexual union, the gays and lesbians may then be demonized, castigated, discriminated against, and yes, those particular glasses of lemonade poured on the ground as waste.

Where in the Constitution does she find that equal protection of the law only applies to gays and lesbians until they are born? We await her answer.

Posted by: benighse | August 6, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

What is so eyebrow raising about clergy making endorsements? Isn't this commonplace?

Posted by: DDAWD | August 6, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

"do you think that government is God?"

There is no "God."

God is a human construct designed to explain what is currently unknown to human beings.

There may be primeval forces that defy our capability to understand them at the current point in time, but that is not even remotely the same thing as what you are talking about.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 6, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

benighse, if science can someday discover the "Gay Gene" perhaps you and I can finally agree on an abortion exception.

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Sharron Obtuse Angle, and Clawrence12, want to let Ted Haggard endorse Republican candidates, from his Pulpit.

If they sit in the front, row, they better duck, when he starts throwing away his meth stash.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 6, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

And clawrence12, by trying to force me to live my life under your "God" you are violating my First Amendment rights.

Thanks a lot.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 6, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, right out of The Matrix, nice.

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Liam - Indeed you are correct.

He should also be against the Republican party as a whole, seeing as how so many of them are closeted self-loathing gays.

Is there anyway we can get Greg to ban Clawrence? Is regurgitation of nonsensical right-wing talking points a banning offense?

I know, I should just ignore him. But I see the stupid and I just naturally want to smack the stupid down. This is where intelligent people come to discuss issues.

I have no problem with Kevin. I disagree with him on many (most) things, but he is a smart guy with well formed thoughts (usually.) Clawrence, however, is a different story.

Posted by: nisleib | August 6, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12, right out of a religious fundamentalist dictatorship, nice.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 6, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Who's God is she talking about. There are thousand of cults, each with their own version of God.

Either they are all wrong, or God suffers from the worst case ever of Multiple Personalities Disorder.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 6, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Let's see if Sharrron practices what she preaches by sending back her campaign support checks from Dick Cheney and Halliburton for supporting Dick's gay daughter; and rejecting the old Award she got from Ronald Reagan who supported his own gay son. Or does she have an exception for family's who support their own gays and lesbians, just not generic gays and lesbians. Try rationalizing that Sharrrron.

Posted by: benighse | August 6, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, even the 1st Amendment has limits (see, e.g. Peyote case where the Supreme Court ruled "freedom of religion" does not include the use of illegal drugs).

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Since Sharron Angle (rightly) refuses to answer Greg and your questions, I would have thought it somewhat useful for me to post here as I agree with every one of here responses on the GING-PAC questionnaire and am willing to provide any clarification as to those views. You know, an actual debate on the issues. I guess not.

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

@nisleib : As long as he is civil, I can't see a reason to ban him. Its true that he has no ideas and just spouts repub talking points, but that is his right.

Banning should be reserved for truly egregious behavior....

my $0.02

Posted by: srw3 | August 6, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

"even the 1st Amendment has limits"

The Establishment Clause is integral to the First Amendment. Limit that, and you limit the essence of the First Amendment. Is that really what you want? You want to make the First Amendment more like the Christian version of Sharia Law?

Why do you hate Thomas Jefferson?

Why do you hate America, Mr. Taliban?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 6, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"Some homosexual obviously are child molesters (since they are in prison for it)"

And some heterosexuals are obviously child molesters (since they are in prison for it). Is a man who molests little girls somehow less sexually deviant than a man who molests boys? Are you implying that somehow little girls being victimized is more acceptable morally?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 6, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

srw3 - he implies that gays are all child molesters and that gay babies should be aborted...

Is hate speech not egregious behavior?

You know what, srw3? You are correct, still, the stupid burns.

Posted by: nisleib | August 6, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone else getting tired of this?"

Tired of Angle stories? Hell yes!

Posted by: sbj3 | August 6, 2010 12:09 PM
...................

SBJ,

Just two days ago; you were complaining that President Obama has not been come out strong enough in support of gay marriages.

Now that this Right Wing Harridan has come out completely against such rights, and is trying to treat you like a sub human, suddenly you do not want to have the topic discussed.

Hypocrite!

Posted by: Liam-still | August 6, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Just to break up the sheer lunacy of this trail of posts:

"The 15 Best Traditions In Sports: Liverpool fans sing You'll Never Walk Alone"

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/430099-the-best-traditions-in-all-of-sports#page/14

Posted by: sbj3 | August 6, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Nice try at the old look over there diversion ploy.

Will not work.


"Anyone else getting tired of this?"

Tired of Angle stories? Hell yes!

Posted by: sbj3 | August 6, 2010 12:09 PM
...................

SBJ,

Just two days ago; you were complaining that President Obama has not been come out strong enough in support of gay marriages.

Now that this Right Wing Harridan has come out completely against such rights, and is trying to treat you like a sub human, suddenly you do not want to have the topic discussed.

Hypocrite!

Posted by: Liam-still | August 6, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

@Liam: But did you watch the video?

Posted by: sbj3 | August 6, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

sbj, I'm a huge Liverpool fan.

At least your taste in football teams is solid.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 6, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

SBJ,

No, and why are you not outraged at Angle treating you like a sub-human?

Posted by: Liam-still | August 6, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

@Greg O/T

Krugman points out that the "Ryan Roadmap" is total and complete bullsh*t. Apparently, when he submitted it to the CBO for scoring...he told them to specifically ignore the lost revenue of his tax cuts, as well as simulate a spending increase freeze that inflated the "savings" from his cuts.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/how-to-read-a-cbo-report/

If I was in Congress, I'd be asking the CBO to score Ryan's Roadmap without those assumptions...

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 6, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

@Liam

Why are you treating SBJ like he actually intends to have an intellectually honest debate?

You should know better.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 6, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

@liam: Tell you what - I won't vote for her.

Last time I checked Reid was a Mormon...

Posted by: sbj3 | August 6, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"Just to break up the sheer lunacy of this trail of posts"

Why do you hate discussion of the First Amendment?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 6, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

@BBQ: "Why are you treating SBJ like he actually intends to have an intellectually honest debate?"

What am I supposed to be debating?

Posted by: sbj3 | August 6, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Never hurts to let others know about a two faced weasel in their midst.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 6, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

@c12: Please stop spreading lies about people.

"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children."--http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Posted by: srw3 | August 6, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

given the universe of folks that hail from farrightwingnutistan, sbj3 is more willing to actually debate issues than the vast majority of other rightwingnuts. Damning with faint praise, but he is head and shoulders above quarterback1 or jaked2, for example. Again its a very low bar...

Posted by: srw3 | August 6, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse


@liam: Tell you what - I won't vote for her.

Last time I checked Reid was a Mormon...

Posted by: sbj3 | August 6, 2010 1:30 PM |

......................

You said that you voted against President Obama. In fact you said that was the only reason you even bothered to go and vote. Yet that did not stop you from complaining about him not being strong enough in support of gay marriages. That was just two days ago.

So there goes your; "will not vote for her" lame excuse. She is still treating you like a sub human, and you will not object to her doing so, because you are a Right Wing Hypocrite.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 6, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

All, my take on the Dems' political predicament in the wake of today's jobs numbers:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/dems_caught_in_trap_of_their_o.html

Posted by: sargegreg | August 6, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Sharron Angle's tinfoil hat is too tight.

Posted by: Please_Fix_VAs_Roads | August 6, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

@srw3

If you think what sbj does on this board is "debate" anything, then he's already fooled you.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 6, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

@bbq: all I said was that he was better than the other trolls on the site, not that he was Clarence Darrow. And to be fair, once in a great while sbj does make a cogent point. Its rare but it does happen. Remember I set a pretty low bar...

Posted by: srw3 | August 6, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Ok. Someone explain to me what is so extreme about this revelation?

She has a viewpoint, her opinion... her personal moral code. And her answer on that questionnaire (as irrelevant as it is) was that she wasn't willing to sell out her morals for political fundraising purposes. That's the kind of politician we should be looking for.

Although, I'd prefer it was a left-of-center Democrat taking that stance. I think Angle is a total maroon, based on what I've heard of her.

On a related note, how can any citizen vote for someone who claims, "government is not the solution, it's the problem," and then adds, "so please elect me to a government position"?

Posted by: springfielder | August 6, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, srw3, I guess. At least now you know that I don't "run away."

springfielder, search and rescue personnel subject themselves to dangerous conditions to save someone too. I admire Angle for trying what she can to save America.

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

As for my "lie" about homosexual men (including Catholic priests) molesting children, your link does not disprove my claim. One problem is that none of the studies in this area have obtained data from a probability sample, that is, a sample that can be assumed to be representative of the population of all child molesters. Rather, most research has been conducted only with convicted perpetrators or with pedophiles who sought professional help. Consequently, they may not accurately describe child molesters who have never been caught or have not sought treatment.

A second problem is that the terminology used in this area is often confusing and can even be misleading. We can begin to address that problem by defining some basic terms.

Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty.

Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.

Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.

An adult male (over the age of 18) engaging in any sexual contact with a male under the age of 18 is a child molester in my book. Your study therefore does NOT differentiate between the rates of this child molestation and "heterosexual" molestation. This is a common problem among those who defend homosexual behavior, especially when they mis-classify such behavior as coming from an "otherwise" heterosexual male.

I hope that at least clarifies my position and gives you some insight into Angle's position on the matter.

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

srw3, I've read the entire link you provided, and they make the same mistake: summarily dismissing Cameron's claims (as just one example) that all male-on-male molestations are committed by homosexuals -- well, duh, there's no other common-sense way to get around that fact -- as a "fallacious assumption."

Now, did you find the links for "Kagan lesbian" yet?

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 6, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"Ok. Someone explain to me what is so extreme about this revelation?"

It's extreme from the viewpoint of normal politicians.

"Right" Angle is not normal. She is a freaking, shrieking far-far-rightwingnut harridan.

From her perspective this is not extreme at all. Vote accordingly, Nevadans.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 6, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, I don't see anything in that letter that indicates Jefferson's position on the constitutionality of school vouchers. You are an idiot.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | August 6, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

As we can see, progressives are desperately demonizing Sharron Angle, which will help convince thinking Americans in Nevada that they must vote for Sharron Angle.

Progressives are controlled by Marxist and U.S. enemies, so the more progressives demonize someone, the better that person is likely to be for our country. That's exactly the case with Sharron Angle.

The more progressives demonize Sharron Angle, the more they confirm that Sharron Angle will be able to help us defend ourselves -- and our children and grandchildren -- from Obama, Reid and Pelosi and their job-killing, economy-killing, freedom-killing scams like Obamacare and cap and trade.

Initially the millions invested in propaganda and the lies and manipulation used by progressives to demonize Angle may work for them. However, the more people learn about what Sharron REALLY stands for and why, the more votes she will eventually get.

Patriotic and thinking Americans want JOBS -- the jobs that Reid has helped Obama kill with scam after scam, including the Obamacare scam -- not government handouts. They would vote for the mafia before voting for Reid. The mafia has harmed us less that Reid.

Patriotic and thinking Americans support Sharron Angle.

Posted by: AntonioSosa | August 6, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

@nisleib and srw3

I agree with both of your thoughts about Clarence. While we may consider him be an intellectual lightweight who simply spews talking points...he is basically respectful and unlike are good ole buddy bilgey doesn't call everybody slave. LMAO And so I throw my .02 with srw3 although I do understand your aggravation nisleib. And in reading your posts I can see your a serious thinking person.

And that is what is killing our country today. The R's are running short of "serious" people. They don't wish to actually debate issues but search for "Waterloos" or crap around with death panels and killing granny...they live in the land of Mama Grizzley and hyperbole.
They wish to spend their time living in fear...in fear of the gays, the Muslims, the blacks the browns...well the list grows doesn't. Is GOP a synonym for coward?

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 6, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Antonio you're real piece of work...

"Progressives are controlled by Marxist and U.S. enemies,"

That is perhaps the most indefensible moronic statements of the day.

You sir/mam in the politest terms I can state are what is wrong with this great nation. You come across as a myopic, zenophobic, uneducated cretin!

I am a progressive. I am not CONTROLLED by Marxists or enemies of our nation...and that is probably a statement you cannot make because you probably watch Fox propaganda which has been caught far too many times doctoring their reports with falsehoods. OMG they use Andrew Breitbart as a source.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 6, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Just the facts:
http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/hparent1.html

Posted by: ericthoman | August 7, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Thgis woman Engle - well, you have our party of God speaking. Hardly different then what gave Afghanistan the taliban etc etc

But I wager that when her Judgmentday comes, she'll be the one reject for the next life.

Joining the cretins who gave us slavery, segregation, the KKK, WWII and the hatred of the Jews,

and the hatred of the gays as well.

Some of our black folks, during the civil rights battles of the past really had it right, even thought it sounds vicious....

for the KKK and their kind, they said "burn baby burn"

Angle will get hers also. The sooner the better.

Posted by: SJames6621 | August 8, 2010 2:44 AM | Report abuse

@clawrence12: is a 19-year-old male having sex with a 17-year-old male a child molester?

Is a 19-year-old male having sex with a 17-year-old female a child molester?

Is a 19-year-old female having sex with a 17-year-old male a child molester?

Posted by: QNetter | August 9, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Some heterosexuals obviously are child molesters (since they are in prison for it) and some heterosexuals never once act out on such thoughts, but it’s certainly a continuum of deviant sexual behavior.

Posted by: truecatholic | August 9, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

QNetter and truecatholic have posted correct statements, even if they were trying to mock. "What they intend for evil, You intend for good."

Posted by: clawrence12 | August 10, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company