|
|
| Re: Brown's Leading (547926) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (548259) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Jan 12 22:19:53 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 12 22:14:33 2010. lol, she must be foaming about what she thinks she hears from the pundits.How would she know what they are saying if she doesn't bother to listen to their shows? Just more spoonfeeding from leftist outlets... |
|
|
| (548261) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 12 22:22:53 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by rbseabeach on Tue Jan 12 19:20:06 2010. Just like any Republican woman, the liberals can't support a Republican minority either. |
|
|
| (548278) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Jan 12 23:22:13 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jan 12 19:28:10 2010. Gonzales was forced out for firing 6 people with Reno fired far more people. |
|
|
| (548279) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Jan 12 23:22:45 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 12 22:22:53 2010. Yup. It's their way or nothing. |
|
|
| (548334) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jan 13 02:51:35 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jan 12 15:42:38 2010. The Selkirks, Will D's, RIPTA's, bingbongs, SMAZ', of the world will be more than happy to brand anyone a racist for not being pro-open borders, but I don't think they genuinely give a shit.You have no idea where I stand on immigration issues. If they did, they wouldn't live in such white areas. I do? |
|
|
| (548335) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jan 13 02:55:04 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by rbseabeach on Tue Jan 12 15:28:02 2010. At least we are not proposing socialism and spreading the wealth around. Remember Joe the Plumber?I remember the Wall St bailouts. |
|
|
| (548336) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jan 13 03:00:04 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by rbseabeach on Tue Jan 12 19:00:38 2010. BAM really helpped brothas like Patterson & Thompson.You limited little mind just can't get past skin color can it? |
|
|
| (548367) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Wed Jan 13 07:28:19 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by rbseabeach on Tue Jan 12 17:32:35 2010. "they do not want the government telling them what doctor to see, what car to drive and what food to eat."Yea..but they are allowing the government to tell them who they can marry and who they can't...THAT IS TOTAL GOVERNMENT INTRUSION! |
|
|
| (548388) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jan 13 09:50:20 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by SMAZ on Wed Jan 13 02:51:35 2010. You're actually the only lib here who may not. We don't know exactly where you live in Queens. I once thought Queensbridge, but you told us "no". |
|
|
| (548393) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 13 09:58:38 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jan 13 09:50:20 2010. I just took a look. My census tract is 67% non-hispanic white and my community district is 28% non-hispanic white.But then again you don't really have any evidence that I'm a liberal, so maybe your statement still holds. |
|
|
| (548415) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Jan 13 11:25:05 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by rbseabeach on Tue Jan 12 19:18:43 2010. Thomas is a hypocrite. Having attained success (despite a broadly accepted lack of qualifications for his current position) he strongly supports dismantling affirmative action. I got mine, so fuck the rest of ya. Roberts and Alito support the wholesale oppression of women. Steele is your idiot, not mine. I don't care one way or another about him, not my problem.Why was the bill passed on Christmas Eve? Why did the republicans insist on a full 48 hours of debate after cloture when they knew it was a losing battle? That's why they voted on Christmas Eve. They could have been out of DC a week earlier had they not played their little parlimentary rules games. |
|
|
| (548432) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 13 12:23:42 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by streetcarman1 on Wed Jan 13 07:28:19 2010. Since marriage is a government function, how is regulation a government intrusion? |
|
|
| (548443) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jan 13 12:38:37 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by streetcarman1 on Wed Jan 13 07:28:19 2010. Another person who does not understand the definition of marriage. Marriage is the public acknowledgment of a relationship, not the joining itself. There is no law preventing two men from moving in together, conducting a ceremony in front of their friends, and claiming they are married. There is absolutely no right in the Constitution which mandates that all people have the right to demand everyone accept their domestic situation. There are plenty of regulations which govern what unions the government will recognize. Siblings can't marry. Parents can't marry children. Polygamy is also illegal. Our society chooses to recognize and reward only the unions it approves of, to further society's best interest (stable families, paternal responsibility, etc). |
|
|
| (548447) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Wed Jan 13 12:53:19 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 13 12:23:42 2010. Since the government does not allow you to marry whoever you want. Do you get it now>? lol...that's an intrusion of one's right to marry whoever you want....regardless of gender... |
|
|
| (548450) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Wed Jan 13 13:03:58 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jan 13 12:38:37 2010. Another person who does not understand what the post is asking....it's called GOVERNMENT INTRUSION....dingbat....lol if the law states that marriage is between a man and a woman, that means that the government is defining who you can and can not marry. That's an intrusion on those persons seeking to marry someone of the same gender...meatheat.....stop smoking the CATNIP...for God's sake...! |
|
|
| (548456) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 13 13:23:28 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by streetcarman1 on Wed Jan 13 12:53:19 2010. You're the one who doesn't get it. Government intrusion is not an issue where people are actively seeking government sanction for their relationship. No law stops a same sex couple from remaining together. |
|
|
| (548462) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Jan 13 14:19:15 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by rbseabeach on Tue Jan 12 19:31:05 2010. So? All that tells me is that you're in favor of allowing a small carefully chosen oligarchy to rob the rest of their work, health and rights.
|
|
|
| (548463) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Jan 13 14:22:50 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by rbseabeach on Tue Jan 12 19:23:53 2010. D'Amato was a crook. He was only into doing the LIRR so long as he could siphon money away (through his brother no less). He wasn't interested in helping anyone besides himself his entire career. I remember him from Hempstead town government....he's the reason LI emptied out in the 70s. |
|
|
| (548473) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 13 15:21:51 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jan 12 15:42:38 2010. I do live in Riverdale, but Riverdale is right next to Kingsbridge and Marble Hill. Riverdale itself has a surprising number of minority people. I interact with minority people every day. |
|
|
| (548476) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Wed Jan 13 15:25:07 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 13 13:23:28 2010. It stops them from getting MARRIED...get it? |
|
|
| (548485) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jan 13 15:37:59 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 12 22:22:53 2010. Just like any Republican woman, the liberals can't support a Republican minority either.Why would "liberals" support any "Republican"? Contrary to what some posters here would like to believe, "liberalism" doesn't mean applying affirmative action to political positions. |
|
|
| (548487) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jan 13 15:40:42 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 13 15:21:51 2010. You live in Riverdale. |
|
|
| (548489) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 13 15:41:42 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 12 22:22:53 2010. Why would liberals support a Republican just because he/she's a minority or woman? We look at positions, not personalities or group membership.And in fact, many liberals liked Colin Powell. |
|
|
| (548491) | |
Re: Brown surging in MA |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 13 15:43:41 2010, in response to Brown surging in MA, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jan 12 17:50:31 2010. Most likely, Coakley still wins. By November though, many voters will have forgotten about this. |
|
|
| (548493) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 13 15:52:59 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jan 13 15:40:42 2010. And you know what about Riverdale? |
|
|
| (548498) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jan 13 16:00:09 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 13 15:52:59 2010. And you know what about Riverdale?Don't you mean to say, "What do you know about Riverdale"? When you speak in that snide arrogant tone, you sound like a twenty-something female on a reality show, trying to outwit another female on the show. Riverdale is very upscale. |
|
|
| (548499) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Wed Jan 13 16:02:13 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jan 13 16:00:09 2010. "Riverdale is very upscale"...So are you now saying because Riverdale is very upscale..it can't be diverse? ....shows how much you know......very little.... |
|
|
| (548500) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed Jan 13 16:05:24 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jan 12 15:42:38 2010. Cisneros (I think) made some comments recently saying that immigration had been on the back burner until health care and the war were being worked on, but that he expected Obama to make a push for amnesty in 2010 and I'm sure that he will. The entire charade of Obama saying that illegals (undocumented immigrants) won't be part of health care was that there will be no more illegals. |
|
|
| (548502) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jan 13 16:10:23 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by Easy on Wed Jan 13 16:05:24 2010. It would not be on the back burner if a white male Republican was in the White House. That's obvious.I agree. Obama will legalize as many illegals as possible as they will get health care. |
|
|
| (548514) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 13 17:07:32 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by streetcarman1 on Wed Jan 13 15:25:07 2010. And getting MARRIED is a government function...get it?If they didn't want government intrusion, they wouldn't go for a government function. |
|
|
| (548526) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Jan 13 17:20:11 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 12 22:14:33 2010. So you're saying beck is the poster child for sanity? LOL!!!!! The guy's still all coked out...... |
|
|
| (548528) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Jan 13 17:21:10 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Jan 12 22:19:53 2010. There's enough clips from the shows floating about. |
|
|
| (548532) | |
Re: Brown surging in MA |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jan 13 17:22:47 2010, in response to Brown surging in MA, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jan 12 17:50:31 2010. Brown wins ... by 120%! The crowd goes wild! :) |
|
|
| (548553) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 13 17:35:55 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by streetcarman1 on Wed Jan 13 16:02:13 2010. Thank you. And it is getting more diverse, not less.Not to mention that most of it is solidly middle class |
|
|
| (548555) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 13 17:37:23 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jan 13 16:00:09 2010. I wanted it to rhyme with, "and you know squat about Riverdale." :-) |
|
|
| (548799) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jan 13 23:44:35 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 13 09:58:38 2010. I just took a look. My census tract is 67% non-hispanic white and my community district is 28% non-hispanic white.Here is mine in 2000: As of the United States Census, 2000, the Community Board has a population of 211,220 up from 188,549 in the 1990 and 185,198 in 1980. Of them (as of 2000), 88,606 (41.9%) are White non Hispanic, 21,581 (10.2%) are African-American, 27,399 (13.0%) Asian or Pacific Islander, 475 (0.2%) American Indian or Native Alskan, 3,099 (1.5%) of some other race, 12,368 (5.9%) of two or more race, 57,692 (27.3%) of Hispanic origins. |
|
|
| (548865) | |
Re: Brown's Leading |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 14 01:40:26 2010, in response to Re: Brown's Leading, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jan 13 16:10:23 2010. I agree. Obama will legalize as many illegals as possible as they will get health care.Obama doesn't have the power to legalize anybody. Their is no appetite in Congress in either party to tackle that issue. Even the non-controversial and bipartisan DREAM Act has no chance this year. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||