gdp's Comments

The New Civil Rights Movement : World's Most Prestigious Teaching Hospital To Force Anti-Gay Hate On Students At Graduation

Fri, 5 Apr 2013 18:11:55 +0000

Depends on the nature of the forum. The man is a medical genius, regardless of his opinion on civil rights. If he's speaking on medicine, then he absolutely deserves a public forum. However unpleasant his opinions may be, dragging that into his professional career is an unfair tactic. Just because he's being unjust doesn't mean that people should lower themselves to his level to punish him.

The New Civil Rights Movement : World's Most Prestigious Teaching Hospital To Force Anti-Gay Hate On Students At Graduation

Fri, 5 Apr 2013 18:06:41 +0000

Interesting. So, what do you make of the fact that there isn't a single actual page in the bible that condemns homosexuality? The quote in Leviticus specifically refers to a man lying with a man as he would lie with a woman. It says nothing about women lying with women, nor about men lying with men in a way that they wouldn't lie with a woman. And no, you can't assume that a statement against lesbianism was implied in that text, considering that every single other passage referring to a sex act in Leviticus is overwhelmingly specific, to the point of even making different statements for men and women. Sodom and Gomorrah was speaking about the act of rape, not homosexuality. Finally, the apostle Paul made several statements about sins in regards to sexual conduct. They were about prostitutes. Of course, this all depends on which version of the bible you're reading. But I'm sure you have the edition that already says what you want to believe, instead of something translated with the intent to be as accurate as possible.

The New Civil Rights Movement : A Better Way To Stop A Bad Man With A Gun, Than A Good Man With A Gun

Thu, 4 Apr 2013 21:56:24 +0000

This is actually a good idea, and has use beyond the unlikely event of a school shooting. Retrofitting a panic room into various areas of public schools could make an area where students would be safer during extreme weather as well. The only worry is that I don't think this is something that has been tried before, so their might not be any statistics to support or condemn it. However, were the legislation worded the right way, it'd be hard to justify opposing this.

The New Civil Rights Movement : United For Marriage Coalition Apologizes For Mistreatment Of Trans And Undocumented Activists -- HRC

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:46:07 +0000

They are indeed looking to make amends, so long as it doesn't require effort or a changing of behavior.

The New Civil Rights Movement : GOP Hero Ben Carson: 'Be They Gays, Be They NAMBLA, Be They People Who Believe In Bestiality'

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:40:51 +0000

Really now? This verbal comparison of homosexuality to other things, monstrous as they may be in theory, is the equivalent of actual medical experimentation that resulted in real, physical suffering of the victims? Leave the exaggerations at the door. This man's record shows nothing of medical malpractice, nor that he ever inflicted true physical pain on anyone intentionally. Whatever he's done, he is not and will likely never be a Nazi. By making that comparison you diminish the suffering of the actual victims.

The New Civil Rights Movement : Fighting Mad On Guns: An Angered Obama Says 'Shame On Us If We Forgot Those Kids' (Video)

Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:33:28 +0000

"Common sense" is very different from scientifically based fact. While it's true that the GOP opposes pretty much everything the left puts forward, (A statement that is equally true the other way around.) in this instance, they are not making an illogical move. How many studies have shown that the gun control measures being pushed by the left will have a noticeable effect on the rates of violent crime and homicide? What justification is there to take this action beyond "common sense?" When it comes to political action, you cannot simply say that it sounded like a good idea at the time. And in this instance, the left has very little to support their actions. In fact, the majority of the evidence goes against the measures they propose. In America, locales with the strictest gun control measures have seen no significant drop in the amount of crime seen in those districts. More so, they don't even see a drop in gun crime. Even in countries outside of America, the countries with the lowest crime ratings are not places like the U.K., where citizens are prohibited from owning any sort of firearm. They're places Sweden, where every citizen possesses a firearm, and substantial military training. While there may be a very loud group of ignorant minorities opposing Obama on gun control based purely on a knee jerk reaction, not to mention the firearms industry itself looking to protect it's profits, in this case, that doesn't matter. If you're coming to a debate like this, bring facts. Don't rely on your own fear of other people and supposed "common sense."

The New Civil Rights Movement : Lawmaker Email To Constituent: 'Your Slave-Holding, Murdering, Adulterous, Baby-Raping, Incestuous K

Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:18:40 +0000

That depends. Would you be okay with someone calling you all that based solely on where you live, and a political opinion that says very little about your character? Really, why are you defending this man? The opinion expressed in his letter is vile, racist, and unprovoked. This is not a matter of a politically incorrect slip of the tongue. This is a matter of a legislator holding true hatred for other human beings based solely on their race. Why is hard and fast wrong when so many others do it, and now such a small matter when it comes to this man? Because he's a democrat? Because he's black? Either way, you're applying a different standard to him then you do everyone else. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

The New Civil Rights Movement : Breaking: Radical Conservatives Win -- People With Disabilities Lose Senate Vote

Tue, 4 Dec 2012 20:52:49 +0000

The problem with most of the treaties proposed by the U.N. is that they're immensely difficult for the layperson to research, given that information on the specifics is rarely made available. The U.N.'s own website rarely offers specific wording, which is incredibly important in all litigation. Stack that with politicians habit of wording things vaguely for their own ends, and you've got a bill that could absolutely be intrusive to the idea of national sovereignty on multiple grounds. There's no reason to pass something through on ideological terms alone, especially when the actual effects have not been properly explained. The attempt to do something good is no excuse for doing it badly.

The New Civil Rights Movement : Dr. Oz Used 'Ex-Gay Therapy' To Spike Ratings -- His Own Blog Proves It

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:26:38 +0000

Wait a minute. You mean he spotlighted a practice he deemed harmful and unfair to gain profit from people viewing his show on the subject? Well that's just awful. It sounds like every show and journalistic publication in existence. Just because he decided to use the "unbiased third party" perspective doesn't make him any different than anyone else who speaks on these subjects from a platform that gains them profit by people viewing it. The only reason you're spotlighting him at all is because he presented the argument that the opposing side might have some sort of substance, even if he later said that he doesn't believe it himself. And you know what? He's probably done more good with that show than any publication that simply denigrated ex-gay therapy will ever do. Because by giving them the benefit of the doubt, even if only to make them tune in, he at least got them to listen. How many people who believe that ex-gay therapy works do you think the NCRM has won over by calling them vulnerable people brain-washed by religious fanatics? The only thing he did wrong was let what he actually felt slip before hand, which will make it easier for proponents of ex-gay theory to discredit him as a biased source later. Which this site will help by making the references readily available.

The New Civil Rights Movement : Gays 'Advocating' To 'Forbid Marriage Between A Male And A Female' Says Joyner

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:02:19 +0000

There are areas in that region of Europe that are seeking to eliminate gendered pronouns, mostly in situations around children. There are several preschools that no longer allow the words "wife" or "husband" to appear in materials for the class. To suggest that it's gone so far as to pervade every day speech as a federal offense is a bit to much.

The New Civil Rights Movement : GLAAD Asks 'Where Are So-Called ‘Family’ Organizations On Black Friday?'

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 01:12:27 +0000

Whoever they're targeting doesn't matter. It could be NOM, the FRC, the FBI, the AFA. (American Farmland Association.) Stupid is stupid, regardless of the source. Even if you believe in an organizations message or other actions, that's no reason to tolerate it when they do something badly. I'm well aware of NOM's history of misinformation, of their stances and practices. I'm also aware of people and organizations on the opposing end who engage in the exact same practices. It's intolerable on both ends. This article is not talking about the organizations of broad terms, or their actions. Even being aware the things these organizations do, and the levels of stupidity they are capable of (The Top Ten Threats Facing Teens Today comes to mind) does not have any bearing on this action by GLAAD. If you're going to tout the superiority of your argument on grounds of intelligence, moral superiority, or whatever else, do not tolerate or support the practices of your side if you would decry them coming from another. Have a problem with NOM relying on a misrepresentation of facts? Then why are you defending a movement like this, which founds it's argument on a misrepresentation of statistical facts? Because you agree with one group and not the other? That's a double standard.

The New Civil Rights Movement : GLAAD Asks 'Where Are So-Called ‘Family’ Organizations On Black Friday?'

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 03:26:05 +0000

Does it matter why they didn't bring it up? In all likely-hood, it's something that they simply don't care about. The only reason the media cares about it is because it's something that sounds ominous that they can report on in a day otherwise devoid of news. The point being, this is a stupid argument for GLAAD to bring to the forefront. Were it to gain any momentum, it sets GLAAD up for an obvious response. And that response will be backed by facts and statistical evidence. Regardless of what it's meant to do, or why it was brought up in the first place, the only thing this can accomplish is making GLAAD look incompetent, and the organizations they're targeting seem more level-headed in comparison. From a completely outside perspective on this issue, GLAAD comes across as a group of incompetents unable to even access a fact checker. If they can't get this right, and it took me literally five seconds to debunk with no prior knowledge of the issue, it doesn't send a good message about the quality of their organization. I hope this little bit of stupidity doesn't get picked up by anyone else, if only because it could be ruthlessly exploited by anyone with half a mind to do so.

The New Civil Rights Movement : Former RNC Chair To GOP: Same-Sex Marriage Is A Conservative Value

Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:55:56 +0000

Ah, yes. Because taking political action in a party you disagree with should be illegal, and people can never make up for what they've done in the past. Very progressive of you.

The New Civil Rights Movement : GLAAD Asks 'Where Are So-Called ‘Family’ Organizations On Black Friday?'

Sat, 24 Nov 2012 06:04:28 +0000

They don't attack it because Black Friday is an over hyped mess that actually generates much less physical sales than is often reported. In fact, Black Friday didn't explode until online shopping became a thing. Snopes has even done a bit on this. It's right here. http://www.snopes.com/holidays/thanksgiving/shopp... I'm assuming family organizations don't attack Black Friday because they took two seconds to see if it was an actual phenomenon, or just media overblowing things because there's nothing else to report on the day after Thanksgiving. This is a stupid idea, built on a dumber idea, that's founded entirely in myth. When you want to "take someone to task" for not acting on something, it's probably a good idea to make sure that thing is a thing that actually exists.

The New Civil Rights Movement : Bryan Fischer: Exorcisms Can Cure People Of The Gay

Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:51:39 +0000

If they had someone respectable on the show, they wouldn't be able to paint their opposition as brutally evil psychopaths. It's the same reason why O'Reilly only ever allows the craziest of the left on his show. It generates much more views that way, and makes people feel better about themselves. "At least I'm not them," and such. Of course, having those people on your show only ensures that they will continue to exist.

The New Civil Rights Movement : Obama-Appointed Black Gay Judge Is 'Model Obama Voter' Says Christian News Site

Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:45:19 +0000

So the proper response to something you don't agree with is to completely clam up about it an not say a thing? "Just deal with it?" Hmm... I'm sure Fredrick Douglas would have been much more successful had he taken that approach.

The New Civil Rights Movement : O'Reilly: Hispanics, Women, Gays, Blacks Don't Believe In 'Self Reliance'

Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:38:34 +0000

He relies on his ability to make people watch his show. Probably using the knowledge he gained while getting his first masters degree. Or maybe his second. Regardless, there's a difference between not doing everything yourself because you don't want to, and not doing it because you've become successful enough to not have to. And judging from the amount of attention he gets on this site alone, I'd say he has enough people paying attention to his show to pretty much never have to do anything but make people made for the rest of his life.

The New Civil Rights Movement : O'Reilly: Hispanics, Women, Gays, Blacks Don't Believe In 'Self Reliance'

Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:32:47 +0000

"As a matter of fact, religions that believes there is some great god up in the air controlling everything are in that category. Atheist know what self reliance is. That don't give away their power to some make believe god/santa claus. " What you're speaking of is religious determinism, a fringe idea that doesn't get much traction because it negates the idea of free will. Atheists also have an analogue. It's just called determinism. (Being the belief that every action is the result of the preceding action, therefor free will is a myth, as is self control.) When we incorporate a living wage instead of a minimum wage, people will feel respected and able to live a decent life without working themselves to death to make some greedy owner rich. When the 1% get it in their heads they are rich because there are many people that help them achieve that and not use them as sweat shop labor people will want to work. Fixed your mistakes for you there. And, how do you define living wage? Nationally or by state? Do you incorporate solely the cost of living, (food, housing, and utilities) or would you also like to determine how much extra people deserve on top of that? And how would you like to handle the research on what is the current living wage? Should it be evaluated yearly? Monthly? Should people have to work full time to earn a living wage? What about small businesses that can't afford to pay their workers whatever the living wage is at the time? Should that get subsidies to help them get off the ground, or should we just rely on the people who have that sort of capital to begin with to provide jobs? There are times in life when natural disasters hit and the people complaining about those taking from the government will know what it is like to ask for something without having to work for it. Every time a Sandy or Katrina hits. those who hate the ones collecting money from the government learn a lesson. I laugh and say now you know what it is like to be on the other end. Your karma has arrived. Do you have a different perspective, of what it is like to beg for help food, shelter,, gas, heat, building another house? Again, fixed your mistakes. So, you don't differentiate between disaster relief and day to day living? Between people who had something and watched it all be taken away but something they truly had no power to avoid or control, and those who never worked for anything in the first place? Then, you see people hit by disasters like that and laugh at them? You think they deserved it? That says more about you than anything else. Churches and religions are huge business that don't pay a dime of taxes. Are these self reliant people? They preach from their pulpit about the lowly life jesus lived, but do they really care about the poor? They fly to other countries helping others (which is desperately needed) but why not fix the problem in your neighborhood before you rush to another country? Because they lie and deceive. Are these organizations self reliant? Not generalizing or labeling things with a broad brush I see. Nice to know that I may look at Islam mosques, Christian churches, and Buddhist temples as functionally the same thing. Now excuse me while I try and wrap my head around this concept. They send aid to third world countries, where the quality of life is worse, the death rates are higher, the landscape is more violent, and people have much less resources to help themselves, because they are lying about caring about the poor. So, by helping others who are in worse situations, and are harder to get to then the people who're easy to reach, they are demonstrating that they do not care about poor people....Okay, I think I get it. Next time I do charity, work I'll be sure to do the easiest thing possible. To show how much I care. Also, no. Religions are not self reliant. Because they are made up of a group of people. They rely on the group of people. Just like the government. And corporations. And every activist movement ever. More so, no where in this article is religion mentioned. Why are you bringing it up?

The New Civil Rights Movement : GOP Identity Crisis Solved -- Santorum Preparing 2016 Presidential Run

Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:34:39 +0000

Unlikely. The GOP never really liked him to begin with, and since Mitt Romney drifted further to the right and lost this election, it's unlikely that they'll try electing someone who is genuinely that far on the right for the next run. Right now his main use to the GOP is as an example of Dan Savage's bullying, and even then it's only really an afterthought if they're talking about Savage anyway. I'm guessing he'll fade into irrelevance pretty quickly.

The New Civil Rights Movement : The Only States That Don't Want To Secede Are The Ones With Gay Marriage

Thu, 15 Nov 2012 05:01:18 +0000

A very provocative article. Will you be updating it to reflect the information that all fifty states now have recognized petitions for secession, or are you going to continue to pose that this is a problem unique to states without gay marriage? Another note. The main source of coverage for this phenomenon? Left-leaning journalism outlets such as this one. Save for the most radical of the right, which are usually the ones advocating secession, the mainstream right-wing publications are ignoring this. Townhall.com has yet to comment, as have a number of other sources. So, is this a problem with the Tea Party and Republicans, or a fringe group of radicals who happen to say to affiliate themselves with those groups?