Comments on: Sources Say…Part I

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 02:17:45 +0000

I have no idea who the speaker is or what country he is from. So I’ll just give my reaction off this statement you posted…. definitely reactionary. Don’t see what the big deal about gambling is. I don’t gamble much, but that’s my business. Yeah, America has it’s problems. yes sex sells and women are used to sell everything under the sun (and those models are usually VERY well paid). We also have women as CEO’s, bankers, lawyers, and the current Secretary of State, and at least one woman will be running for president in the next election (I still think the republicans should have nominated Libby Dole instead of Bob Dole). As I said, I don’t know which country this writer is from so can his country claim that women can go that far? Does his country lead the world in donations of money and materials in the wake of natural disasters and famine? Yeah we’re the richest country in the world, but also very generous, especially on the private level in giving to non profit organizations. We’ve got problems. So does his country.

By: David in DC

David in DC — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:16:22 +0000

Unfair shot on the edits. I just reread the source.

On this occasion, the speaker left out the rant about homosexuality. But trust me, it’s usually in there.

By: David in DC

David in DC — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:11:31 +0000

I thought I recognized that. Google’s cool. I’ll keep the source to myself.

It’s a reactionary view of women and sexuality, that’s for sure. And one that confuses license with licentiousness. I think it’s wrong.

As far as gambling goes, I think it’s nuts. Adults ought to be able to make dumb choices. I’ll oppose anyone who wants to bar my way to a blackjack table.

I’m a libertarian on drugs and intoxicants. I agree with the speaker that our drug laws are nuts, but s/he would have drugs entirely outlawed while I’d see them legalized and, where need be, regulated.

S/he speaks of incest in criticizing our sexual immorality. I’m against incest too.

But the speaker’s real crusade, which would be clearer without the edits, is against homosexuality. On that I think s/he’s wrong and American’s who support equal rights for homosexuals are right.