Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
no_such_reality
ParticipantVoting for Paul in the Primary. That’s the loudest message I can send to the Republicans to return to their fiscal roots.
On the props: no.
No on the Indian gaming. $14Billion over 20 years is a pittance compared to the costs the gaming drives into our communities.
No on the term limits which is really a rollback of term limits from 2 terms in either house to up to 6 terms in the Assembley and 3 in the Senate.
No on the bonds. No on the taxes.
ParticipantVoting for Paul in the Primary. That’s the loudest message I can send to the Republicans to return to their fiscal roots.
On the props: no.
No on the Indian gaming. $14Billion over 20 years is a pittance compared to the costs the gaming drives into our communities.
No on the term limits which is really a rollback of term limits from 2 terms in either house to up to 6 terms in the Assembley and 3 in the Senate.
No on the bonds. No on the taxes.
ParticipantVoting for Paul in the Primary. That’s the loudest message I can send to the Republicans to return to their fiscal roots.
On the props: no.
No on the Indian gaming. $14Billion over 20 years is a pittance compared to the costs the gaming drives into our communities.
No on the term limits which is really a rollback of term limits from 2 terms in either house to up to 6 terms in the Assembley and 3 in the Senate.
No on the bonds. No on the taxes.
ParticipantI don’t care about Imus. The way I see it, it was free market in action reacting to free speech. He was free to be stupid, the market reacted.
There is also a major difference, people were offended by the context of Imus’ message, largely in context. As opposed to the mere use of a word which is apparently prohibited and has a defacto context applied.
ParticipantI don’t care about Imus. The way I see it, it was free market in action reacting to free speech. He was free to be stupid, the market reacted.
There is also a major difference, people were offended by the context of Imus’ message, largely in context. As opposed to the mere use of a word which is apparently prohibited and has a defacto context applied.
ParticipantI don’t care about Imus. The way I see it, it was free market in action reacting to free speech. He was free to be stupid, the market reacted.
There is also a major difference, people were offended by the context of Imus’ message, largely in context. As opposed to the mere use of a word which is apparently prohibited and has a defacto context applied.
ParticipantI don’t care about Imus. The way I see it, it was free market in action reacting to free speech. He was free to be stupid, the market reacted.
There is also a major difference, people were offended by the context of Imus’ message, largely in context. As opposed to the mere use of a word which is apparently prohibited and has a defacto context applied.
ParticipantI don’t care about Imus. The way I see it, it was free market in action reacting to free speech. He was free to be stupid, the market reacted.
There is also a major difference, people were offended by the context of Imus’ message, largely in context. As opposed to the mere use of a word which is apparently prohibited and has a defacto context applied.
ParticipantWow Equalizer, way to jump to irrational conclusions.
My point was quite simple, she just gaffed. I could understand people be riled if she was promoting hate, I don’t think she was. That’s the point. Everybody is screaming like she’s promoting hate and they are over reacting.
As for public broadcast channels, people have a right to react to what is said on them. As for Imus, I didn’t pay any attention at all. I simply don’t care.
I’m more concerned about the Farrakhans and Dukes of the world. Should they be stifled? No, unless they go to far.
Can you scream fire in a crowded theatre, No. It is the same thing.
ParticipantWow Equalizer, way to jump to irrational conclusions.
My point was quite simple, she just gaffed. I could understand people be riled if she was promoting hate, I don’t think she was. That’s the point. Everybody is screaming like she’s promoting hate and they are over reacting.
As for public broadcast channels, people have a right to react to what is said on them. As for Imus, I didn’t pay any attention at all. I simply don’t care.
I’m more concerned about the Farrakhans and Dukes of the world. Should they be stifled? No, unless they go to far.
Can you scream fire in a crowded theatre, No. It is the same thing.
ParticipantWow Equalizer, way to jump to irrational conclusions.
My point was quite simple, she just gaffed. I could understand people be riled if she was promoting hate, I don’t think she was. That’s the point. Everybody is screaming like she’s promoting hate and they are over reacting.
As for public broadcast channels, people have a right to react to what is said on them. As for Imus, I didn’t pay any attention at all. I simply don’t care.
I’m more concerned about the Farrakhans and Dukes of the world. Should they be stifled? No, unless they go to far.
Can you scream fire in a crowded theatre, No. It is the same thing.
ParticipantWow Equalizer, way to jump to irrational conclusions.
My point was quite simple, she just gaffed. I could understand people be riled if she was promoting hate, I don’t think she was. That’s the point. Everybody is screaming like she’s promoting hate and they are over reacting.
As for public broadcast channels, people have a right to react to what is said on them. As for Imus, I didn’t pay any attention at all. I simply don’t care.
I’m more concerned about the Farrakhans and Dukes of the world. Should they be stifled? No, unless they go to far.
Can you scream fire in a crowded theatre, No. It is the same thing.
ParticipantWow Equalizer, way to jump to irrational conclusions.
My point was quite simple, she just gaffed. I could understand people be riled if she was promoting hate, I don’t think she was. That’s the point. Everybody is screaming like she’s promoting hate and they are over reacting.
As for public broadcast channels, people have a right to react to what is said on them. As for Imus, I didn’t pay any attention at all. I simply don’t care.
I’m more concerned about the Farrakhans and Dukes of the world. Should they be stifled? No, unless they go to far.
Can you scream fire in a crowded theatre, No. It is the same thing.
ParticipantWho cares why she chose that word. Whoop de do. It wasn’t a threat. It wasn’t meant as intimidation. It wasn’t meant as a slur.
Why did she choose that word? Maybe because she isn’t a hyperstrung nilly that panics whenever anybody says anything that can possibly be read wrong, interpeted as a vieled ‘they’re out to get me’ comment.
Yep, once again, the race mongers are making something of nothing. You dig under many of the recent hate crime panics, whether the vandelised writings at Chapman or some of the nooses ‘ominously’ displayed around campuses, you find the race mongers decrying the hate groups are the ones doing it. They put the nooses up. The prof of awareness studies vandelised her own stuff to get attention for it.
As the saying goes, point a finger, three point back.
-
AuthorPosts