In B. Hussein Obama's case the answer is simple: He is an opportunistic racist/sexist idiot (this language is borrowed from "liberals"/democrats on Bush) whose confused racist (il)logic tightly follows his career, not vice versa (that he is also completely unconstitutional as a president of the USA is just on top of this - in short: BY FAR THE WORST PRESIDENT ELECT EVER. A president-elect with votes delivered through a deep & dangerous black tunnel of racist/sexist inferiority complex may be expected to deliver, well, just that!).
When it comes to the majority of "black" Americans, who are constantly given an extremely non-proportional affirmative part of political etc power on the behalf of other groups, the "civil rights" road they themselves march is usually lacking any shade of color, not to say all colors, i.e. white.
According to recent polls American "blacks" were in an embarrasingly clear majority among those opposing civil rights for those who want to be able to marry regardless of how they look in their pants. In fact, some polls indicate that the "blacks'" civil rights resistance almost equals the percentage of "blacks" that are muslims or, like the Obamas, belong to racist crypto-islamofascist racist separatist "churches"!
Most of you "blacks" out there who don't fit in the above may well be kin to those "blacks" I call my friends. A telling difference might be revealed through scrutiny of the ideologies of some black extremes. You "liberal"/democrat etc who voted for Obama, do you have anything in common with, e.g., the DC snipers who applauded 9/11, harbored anti-American passions and were black muslims. Moreover, one of them, the teenage Malvo, testified that his mentor, Obama-aged Muhammad, was driven by hatred of America because of its “slavery, hypocrisy and foreign policy” and his belief that “the white man is the devil”. As a logical consequence of this political insight he planned to kill six whites a day for 30 days!
With whom do you feel more close? Martin "Uncle Tom" Luther King or DC snipers Muhammad & Malvo?! I think I'd rather live with King, no matter what my own skin nuance would be.
Klevius marriage lesson for you who have trouble with logic.
The "defense" for hetero marriage, i.e. in fact the opposition to other forms of marriage, is logically one of the easiest to dismiss! And why so eager to "defend" heterosexual marriage while not bothering abt sexist polygamy (for you morons who think you have "natural" reasons see From Klevius without love & What's sex segregation)?!
Marriage as an institution is already undermined by the very fact that biological ("natural") reproduction is no longer a legal necessity nor even a social assumption. And, on the other hand, if a married couple does not procreate or adopt children at all, no one would suggest them to separate because of this, even if they had married at young age. And what about old persons who want to marry? They can hardly have an intention of raising a family, can they? Two options remain. read more!
No comments:
Post a Comment