Posted on Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 3:22 p.m.
All have a right to their views on issues such as same-sex marriage
By Letters to the Editor
In my opinion, it was a tough call for President Obama to "embrace same-sex unions," as reported in AnnArbor.com May 31.
I believe that deep down, he feels that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And he has every right, as we all do, to hold that opinion, providing we allow others, because of religious beliefs or any other important reason, to support a dissenting view.
Remember President Kennedy did not permit his Catholicism to dictate governmental policy.
When there is serious disagreement on important issues (such as same-sex marriage), I think a good question to ask ourselves is: Why does that opposing view bother me?
Fredda C. Clisham
Ann Arbor
Comments
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 2:34 p.m.
We all have the same rights now. Everybody can marry a person of the opposite sex.
Modern_Atheist
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 10:25 a.m.
i wish
martini man
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 10:28 p.m.
As anyone who has read any of the comments must be aware of ..My original post was the first one ...the liberals hate it ..BUT ..what is there in that comment that isn't true ??? I get personal attacks ..charges of racism etc... ... but the comment was about Obama's so called " courageous" stand . Even the 99% is within the margin or error. I never made any comment about anyone's right to support homosexual marriages or oppose them.
Modern_Atheist
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 3 a.m.
Ah, so everyone of the left is a stooge? That really shows your tolerance for diversity of opinion.
Michigan Man
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 11:48 p.m.
MM - Please do not lose any sleep over this matter. The liberal elite in Ann Arbor have no tolerance for diversity of opinion or those who are not lefty stooges. I frankly like the tone of your thread and am glad that you are exercising your free speech rights, as I do on A2.com. On a more positive note, west of Zeeb Rd. and east of Carpenter the Ann Arbor elite academic crowd experience severe narcissitic insult and are typically rendered useless in the public arena of thought and culture.
greg, too
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 1:35 p.m.
This is not a religion issue. It is purely a legal issue. Why are some Americans not afforded the basic rights that others are? If two people want to get married, which is basically a legal contract binding their assets, why should they not be allowed to? Sure, you can be a bigot and keep them out of your church, but you should not be allowed to deny them their basic rights afforded by law to everyone else. It is not a question of giving them extra rights, they are looking for equal rights. I find it ironic that any person who has been denied their basic legal rights, either based upon their race, religion, or any other criteria, or is a part of one of those groups, would not support everyone having equal rights. (by the way, I am a straight married white male) And I do agree with some of the other posts. This move by Obama is purely political in nature based upon the timing. If he was pro equal rights, he would have said it from the get-go.
Michigan Man
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 1:27 p.m.
Last I knew, same sex marriage was still not allowed by federal law. I thought we had a Defense of Marriage law still in effect. If Gov. Walker, with the popular support of many in Wisconsin can take on the unions and crush them, one would think the same sex marriage crowd could change the federal law., move on and be happy.
Sparty
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 2:11 p.m.
Not recognized is much different than your original post of "not allowed". ROFL. Nice try to keep attempting to show you were right all along, but your words are plainly written, and are clearly wrong in your original post as I've shown over and over and you've ignored over and over.
Michigan Man
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 8:32 p.m.
Sparty - Would like to see your results from the Michigan Bar exam. Not sure you passed. Really hope with your law background that you have found another profession. Yes, this matter will most likely find its way to the SC - we all know what the SC will do with same sex marriage - Same sex marriage will remain not recognized as federal law.
Sparty
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 6:28 p.m.
Michigan Man, your first post said that "last I knew, same sex marriage was still not allowed by federal law". I pointed out that your post is false. Now you are changing it in your latest post to say that federal law does not recognize same sex marriage. You're doing better, good for you. It's closer. Federal law does not require a State to recognize the same sex marriages from other States. Of course the both the Federal 9th and 1st Circuit Courts of Appeals have said that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, on different grounds, so it's a near certainty that the US Supreme Court will eventually take up the topic. But for now, at least you've learned something ... despite trying to suggest that you were right all along. Nice try. ROFL.
Michigan Man
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 2:19 p.m.
Sparty - Your law degree from MSU is lacking. Guess what, federal law does not recognize same sex marriage.
Sparty
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 2:03 p.m.
Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage treated as a marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns. It does not make same sex marriage illegal. Guess you "knew wrong".
walker101
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 1:06 p.m.
He only embraced this because he needs the votes, just like immigration, he needs the votes. It has nothing to do in what he believes in, he could care less, being hypocritical is being a politician, he's only looking for more votes.
a2citizen
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 3:17 a.m.
Question: Should two gay men be allowed to marry each other if they are brothers?
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 2:31 p.m.
"Question: Should two gay men be allowed to marry each other if they are brothers?" No, because there's a higher chance that their children could have genetic defects.
Enso
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 12:42 p.m.
@a2 You're obviously not one of these conservatives that thinks the government should stay out of our lives. Tell us, how else should the government tell us to live?
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 12:13 p.m.
Yes, I don't care if siblings get married in either homosexual or straight marriages. It's none of my business. While neither would ever come close to the lifestyle I chose for myself it's not my choice on how someone lives their lives. Preventing either type of marriage (homosexual or between siblings) is not going to stop those people from doing what they're doing or loving who they love.
bedrog
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 11:24 a.m.
oh lordy..the 2 married brothers again ( from a previous anti-gay opinion piece)... you forgot to mention that they had to be from Maine ( for some reason ), per the evident rotespeak rhetoric homophobes are into.
a2citizen
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 5:01 a.m.
Charley, Why is it offensive? It is sincere, philosophical question.
Charley Sullivan
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 4:26 a.m.
Only if straight brother and sister who won't have biological kids can. a2, that is a slightly (OK, more than slightly) offensive question.
DBH
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 4:15 a.m.
I would find it to be odd, but I wouldn't care. I am not an expert on the matter, but I think the proscription in society against sibling marriage (substitute sexual relations, if you should prefer), or parent-child marriage, likely arose out of the higher frequency of birth defects in the offspring of such couplings due to the greater chance of recessive traits becoming manifest. Regardless of how one would feel about such risks, that obviously would not be a concern with two brothers, as I cannot imagine how their genetic material could be combined to produce a child.
Dog Guy
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 3:04 a.m.
"Remember President Kennedy did not permit his Catholicism to dictate governmental policy." So the only good Catholic is a bad Catholic?
cgerben
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 1:13 a.m.
Said the person who already has the right.
ex734
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 12:43 a.m.
All have the right to change their minds on issues based on experience and reflection.
martini man
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 11:47 p.m.
Wow !!! All those negative thumbs up !!! I'd like to thank all you liberals for that. It means I have ticked you off, and I love ticking off liberals. The truth is something liberals just can't stand to hear. Keep those minuses coming !!!! And yes ..most of the negative votes come from liberals ..Ann Arbor is infested with them.
MIKE
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 2:13 p.m.
It's Conservative speak for the opposite of a "positive thumbs down".
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 12:24 p.m.
I'd really like to know what a "negative thumbs up" is?
bedrog
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 11:22 a.m.
a 'negative thumbs up" is called a 'thumbs down" by those pointed headed liberals .
DBH
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 4:27 a.m.
@a2citizen, I think you are correct. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/althusser/ It was concluded that he "...was in a state of dementia at the time of the action."
a2citizen
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 3:06 a.m.
Is that the same Louis Althusser that strangled his wife to death on November 16, 1980?
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 2:25 a.m.
Ideology has very little to do with 'consciousness' - it is profoundly unconscious. – Louis Althusser
a2citizen
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 11:53 p.m.
I believe they are currently busy coloring in their books.
Bones
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 10:46 p.m.
My attitude is pretty smple. There are a lot of things that I dontlike, care for or believe in going on in our society. But I do not go out of my way to infringe on others beliefs. If two people love each other no matter if they are straight or gay, then why shouldnt they get married? Even if I didnt care for the idea, I would not oppose someones right to be married.
KINGofSKA
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 10:18 p.m.
In this country, you have the right to agree or disagree with our government. But, in our constitution, it states that EVERYBODY has equal rights. And if you want a religious opinion as well, God loves everybody for who they are. But that's my opinion.
Bluefire
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 7:58 p.m.
Actually, nowhere in the Constitution does it state everyone has equal rights. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
martini man
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 9:37 p.m.
Someone chatised me for saying that Obama will get 99% of the black vote ... I may have misspoke ..it might actually be more like 98.5 % .. Those liberals sure are touchy .
Enso
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 12:40 p.m.
@ Martini You're comments show that voting on someone's race (presumably, you being white only vote for white people) is as important to you as you seem to think it is for African Americans.
a2citizen
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 10:03 p.m.
...or colored it in.
Brad
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 10:01 p.m.
Trust me, whichever bogus stat you use your message is still loud and clear.
Modern_Atheist
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 9:52 p.m.
and you go ON AND ON about "liberals" on all your comments, just because someone has opposing thoughts doesn't mean they're a liberal... maybe they've just actually read a book or two.
Modern_Atheist
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 9:44 p.m.
I'd like to see where your "facts" come from. There is no real way to tell what percentage of the black vote he has but African-American voters comprised 13% of the electorate, and as a demographic, voted 95% for Barack Obama. That might still be a pretty high number but it's not all about race as you would imagine.
Modern_Atheist
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 8:50 p.m.
Gay marriage would affect naysayers just as much as it would my dog... keep your nose out of other people's love lives, it has nothing to do with you.
buffalobob
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 8:36 p.m.
Here is the solution: allow gay marriage in every state, but do away with all financial benefits to all married couples (hetro or gay) unless they have children. Reduced taxes, health care for the spouse, other financial benefits of marriage - were all intended to help the spouse who cares for children. Two married people without children (hetro or gay) should have no tax breaks, no health care for the spouse - they each should work for their benefits. Only people who deserve a break are married with children. By the way, people forget the importance to society of having children - children are needed to support everyone in their old age.
Modern_Atheist
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 12:28 a.m.
What do kids have to do with anything? I'm getting married soon and I don't ever want children. Why should I not have healthcare when I pay taxes that help people who do have kids? Your argument is absolutely ridiculous.
Bluefire
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 8:03 p.m.
I wholeheartedly disagree, buffalobob. My husband and I have no children, but pay for those who do (the decreased tax revenue that results from giving exemptions to parents of children has to be made up somewhere; we still pay taxes toward educating others' children, etc.) I am not opposed to this. I believe we all benefit from a society populated with well cared-for and educated children, but I hardly think we should pay MORE because we chose not to add to the world's overpopulation problem. And ok, children are needed to support the aged -- but if we had fewer children, we'd have fewer aged, and there'd be less of a drain on our resources, too.
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 12:06 a.m.
I think you're headed in the right direction. I've been wondering for a some time how much longer the "pay for having kids + adding to the population" scheme cam last. IMO, the only legitimate marriage subsidy should be for adoptions.
a2citizen
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 10 p.m.
Health care is part of an employment contract. If you want the most qualitified employees, you need to provide attractive benefits.
jcj
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 8:52 p.m.
I suspect there are very few readers that know who Buffalo Bob, Howdy Doody or Clarabell was.
Tru2Blu76
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 8:25 p.m.
As U. S. Senator (and professional comedian) Al Franken famously pointed out: You can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts. Opinions are not sacred nor are they protected (a popular fiction these days). A person cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater - speech which harms others is not protected. Opinions which are not fact based and which may harm others are not protected nor are they a "right" any more than pointing and firing a gun at others without reason is a "right." Gay marriage: is of concern only to gay people. Since there is no proven harm to others arising from that kind of social contract, gay marriage is irrelevant to non-gay (rational, sane) adults. Also, since there is no net gain or loss to society; "equal recognition under the law" for the social contract known as gay marriage is a reasonable expectation for those (gay) people who are participants and supporters. Presidential popularity is key to election success. It's unfortunate that there are non-rational people who will base their vote(s) on factors having nothing to do with the qualifications of a man or woman for the office of president.
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 2:28 p.m.
"A person cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater - speech which harms others is not protected." A common mistake. This is not about speech, it's about inciting a riot.
DBH
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 4:15 p.m.
@a2citizen, I don't have a problem with "paraphrase." I encountered this quote from Mark Twain recently. Its similarity to part of Baruch's quote ("wrong in his facts") struck me. "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
bedrog
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 11:19 a.m.
good post
a2citizen
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 5:41 a.m.
@dbh, maybe plagiarism was a bit strong. How about "paraphrase"?
DBH
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 4:07 a.m.
@Tru2Blu76, none of my remarks had anything to do with gay marriage. They were directed at the correct attribution of the quote you paraphrased. As I stated in an earlier reply, in my opinion, proper attribution to the originator of the quote is important. Give credit where credit is due. Why do you have an issue with that? If you are trying to claim that, because Al Franken did, in fact, say the quote you offered, therefore you were accurate, that is specious. While he may have said it, he did not originate it, the point of my original reply ("Al Franken may have uttered those words, but I believe he borrowed them from Daniel Patrick Moynihan."). I never claimed that you were inaccurate in saying that Mr. Franken uttered the quote in question, only that he did not originate it. Are you disputing that? If not, then what is your point? When I realized upon further investigation that it was James Schlesinger who originally uttered the quote, I corrected MYSELF! "I didn't say I had concluded anything about you and the others." Well, wrong. You claimed I was "defending" something. That is a conclusion. In this case, a correct one, as I was defending the integrity of a quote to be rightfully attributed to its originator. "Since you three obviously think you can hold others to standards which don't exist,..." That is another conclusion and, in this case, a wrong one, at least speaking for myself. I am not, and was not, holding anyone up to any standards, existent or not, just providing information on the proper attribution of a quote in terms of its originator. Hardly much of a standard but, if so, an easy one to meet. And, yes, still laughable ("You pretend to introduce intellectual rigor, now lets [sic] see how you do with the real thing."). Even more so.
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 3:32 a.m.
@DBH: You say your only motive is to clarify the origin of the phrase I used. Okay - fine - you accomplished your goal. But you failed to "correct" anything, my statement about the source I used IS completely accurate!! And you still haven't explained WHY you brought this irrelevant-to-the-point information into the discussion. It's about motive - are you one of those punctilious martinets who must "correct" (erroneously) every point in every post or do you have an agenda regarding gay marriage? I didn't say I had concluded anything about you and the others. - I meant that, given your puzzling, off-the-mark contribution, that is a legitimate question which is up to each of you to answer. You pretend to introduce intellectual rigor, now lets see how you do with the real thing. (Still laughable, is it??)
a2citizen
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 3:16 a.m.
We did leave you alone. And then someone decided to change the definition of marriage.
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 2:19 a.m.
@a2citizen, RE: "I do, however, find his comments on gay marriage bothersome. Infering that adults who do not agree with gay marriage are "irrational and insane" casts a broad brush on voters, who, ballot box after ballot box, have stated gay marriage does not have a place in our society."--- Ref. "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." And: "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone. " -- If only they (people like yourself) would leave us alone, and stay away from ballot boxes. :-)
DBH
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 1:55 a.m.
@a2citizen, your point about the variants being the quotes after Baruch, not before, is well taken. I disagree, though, on the Schlesinger quote being plagiarism. I don't know if there is a clear line but, in my opinion, the wording and subtle difference in meaning between Baruch's and Schlesinger's quotes make them related but distinct. It would have been gracious of Schlesinger to have given Baruch a "tip of the hat" when he uttered his own quote (and, for all I know, he did), but not required. No plagiarism there.
DBH
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 1:55 a.m.
@Tru2Blu76, I don't understand why you think I (and perhaps the others you mentioned) am trying to "defend" anything. I simply think that if one is going to use a quote (and I take your word for it that Sen. Franken did), or attribute a quote to someone (as you did), that one acknowledge the original source. There may be instances in which one might not know the source of the quote, and there was nothing in my initial reply to state or imply otherwise. For the sake of accuracy, and for the sake of proper credit, if a quote's original source is not given, I think it proper to point that out and supply the missing information. You are welcome, nay, invited, to do so in the future if the same opportunity should arise in any of my comments or replies. Why is striving for accuracy and proper attribution an issue for you? Speaking only for myself, I do not think that my "...opinions are always what determines the course of any issue" and why you think so is beyond me. But I am very happy to have been given the opportunity to alleviate your concerns in that regard. So, no need to be anxious about my experiencing any disappointments (big or small) in the future in that vein, as it is a nonissue for me. And, finally, as for your comment (threat?) to "review" my "future posts in the same spirit?" Laughable.
a2citizen
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 12:27 a.m.
a2.com, lighten up. Tru's comment at 7:48 didn't bother me. I do, however, find his comments on gay marriage bothersome. Infering that adults who do not agree with gay marriage are "irrational and insane" casts a broad brush on voters, who, ballot box after ballot box, have stated gay marriage does not have a place in our society.
a2citizen
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 12:19 a.m.
I'm not defending anything. I'm just enjoying some medicinal marijuana and air-conditioning.
a2citizen
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 11:48 p.m.
I'd have mentioned Schlesinger contribution but I considered it plagiarism. And because it was the original it should not be considered a variant. Moynihans, Frankens and Schlesingers would be considered variants.
Tru2Blu76
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 11:48 p.m.
Just to point out something about the quote I used: my attribution is accurate - Sen. Franken DID in fact use the subject aphorism in a debate in the U.S. Senate. Also: my use of his words breaks no rules of history, logic or rhetoric. So while "accuracy" is often required when making a point - sometimes using the second hand or 100th hand version of a given fact works just as well. Which brings up the question: what are DBH, ChrisW and a2citizen defending? Do you each think your opinions are always what determines the course of any issue?? Sorry - you're in for a big disappointment if that's what you're up to. Since you three obviously think you can hold others to standards which don't exist, it will be interesting to "review" your future posts in the same spirit.
DBH
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 10:19 p.m.
Actually, what Bernard Baruch said in either 1946 or 1950 (there is some disagreement as to when) is "Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts." Obviously, a very similar quote, and probably the root of the quote uttered by Messrs. Franken and Moynihan, but not the same. For the record, from what I can tell from further research, James Schlesinger may have been the first to have stated the quote in question (except for the original Baruch variant) in 1973 in testimony before Congress: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan .
FredMax
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 10:17 p.m.
You cannot have your own facts. Your facts will be determined by Tru2Blu.
a2citizen
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 9:56 p.m.
Tru, are you entitled to your own facts? First off, Franken was not that funny. His jokes were easy and basically just insults. Bernard Baruch said it in 1946. http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/everyone_is_entitled_to_his_own_opinion_but_not_his_own_facts/
ChrisW
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 8:58 p.m.
I think Franken borrowed that quote from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
DBH
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 8:57 p.m.
Al Franken may have uttered those words, but I believe he borrowed them from Daniel Patrick Moynihan. http://www.rand.org/commentary/2006/03/08/TH.html (4th paragraph)
Brad
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 8:16 p.m.
Don't believe in same-sex marriage? Then don't marry someone of the same sex. What is the "opposing view" to that?
MIKE
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 2:04 p.m.
Very true. And if you don't believe in Polygamy, marry just one person. And if you don't believe in Bigamy, just do the same. Don't believe in marrying your brother? Don't do it. Same with minors, don't like it, don't do it. That would be true equality. Lets break down those walls also.
mixmaster
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 7:47 p.m.
Everyone has a "right" to their opinion. Even if it's based on a lie or popular misconception. The problem is that most of those who believe that their opinions are not respected (marriage, abortion, health care, equal pay, etc) do NOT have the right to impose their "rights" on others who hold a different opinion.
Modern_Atheist
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 12:25 a.m.
@mixmaster... EXACTLY! I would love to see an argument other than "the bible says its wrong". The bible also says haircuts, eating shellfish, and touching a pig carcass (football/bacon) are wrong. Like I stated in an earlier comment, gay marriage would affect my dog just as much as it would affect those who oppose gay marriage.
mixmaster
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 1:11 p.m.
It's a misconception as well as a lie to spread the notion that same sex marriage has any effect on heterosexual marriage.
a2citizen
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 9:51 p.m.
What is the lie? What is the misconception?
Modern_Atheist
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 8:52 p.m.
i don't believe mixmaster ever said they were qualified to do so... chill out.
jcj
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 8:45 p.m.
Everyone has a "right" to their opinion. Even if it's based on a lie or popular misconception. And YOU are qualified to decide whats a lie or misconception? I think not!
martini man
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 7:42 p.m.
Why would anyone believe it was a "tough call" ??? Obama has 99% of the black vote no matter what he embraces, as long as he doesn't join the GOP !!! . He needs the homosexual vote and the same sex marriage supporters, in order to win the election. Just looks like wise politics on Obama's part to me. Oh and just for the record ..he aint gettin' MY vote, no matter what he embraces or pretends to embrace.
ESprout
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 1:22 p.m.
I'd be willing to bed Mr. Martini Man gets his information from Fox news. Of course, he watches "all" the news stations, but I'll bet if you turned on his TV, the Good Ol' Boys of Fox news would slowly appear on screen...or a stupid commercial about taste testing car insurance...(think about it...someone had THAT idea about taste testing car insurance...ok...the worst part is...someone said, "Hey! That's a great idea! Let's do it!" Both those people should be fired...)
bedrog
Mon, Jun 11, 2012 : 11:18 a.m.
"he aint gettin" martini's vote?? gasp!
a2citizen
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 9:49 p.m.
modern, martini's statement has a little hyperbole, but not much. Ann Arbor. 27 square miles surrounded by reality.
Modern_Atheist
Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 8:54 p.m.
... where do you get that he has 99% of the black vote? Your own bigotry? Black people must vote for black people just because they're black... good job.