enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
What's New, Pussycat? Can't See the Forest For The Trees?
by techresmgt
This alleged nominee for the highest court in the land proves that racial and gender equality is a sham; a one-way street, an excuse to push a 'just us' agenda in America. Those that claim they are so liberal, racially, and gender neutral, should pick up a good dictionary and learn to read and multi-task. Open said book to the following words; racism, sexism, equality, discrimination, civil rights. Read said definitions. Get a clue. Terms like 'reverse discrimination' are 'made up' terms by the media and politicians in an attempt to 'water down' those grotesque human behaviors that some claim violate 'their' civil rights but not others. What about EVERY American's civil rights? Obviously these one-way politicians and judges believe that only 'some' Americans' civil rights should be protected. That is probably going be a problem to square with American laws, the United States Constitution, and past rulings by the courts. The term 'civil rights' has obviously been hijacked by special interest groups, politicians, and those 'civil rights leaders'(cough) that live a double standard and are foaming at the mouth, rabid hypocrites. What we have in America is 'just us' like we have never seen before in our history. No wonder space aliens hover and do not land on this planet. No intelligent life on this rock. We need another journalist pandering for Obama like we need a hole in our heads. Civil rights are for EVERYONE, too bad some don't much like that idea.
Re: What's New, Pussycat? Can't See the Forest For The Trees?
by octobia

"Civil rights are for EVERYONE,"

Give me a minute, here, to compose myself. We (us liberals that is) have been waiting for severeal decades to hear such sweet music from right-wing lips (er, fingertips).

Civil rights are for EVERYONE! It's even mor musical the second time. Maybe the concept will spread. One can hope.

Weren't liberals insisting for the last 30 or 40 years...
by gringo_911
that some people should be more protected and have more civil rights than others? I mean, looking at the Ricci case, it kind of obvious too.
Re: Weren't liberals insisting for the last 30 or 40 years...
by MisterPerson

gringo_911:
that some people should be more protected and have more civil rights than others? I mean, looking at the Ricci case, it kind of obvious too.

Affirmative Action = Apartheid.

View as RSS news feed in XML