Obama supporters serve up venomous ‘revenge’ to actress Stacey Dash: ‘Die,’ ‘come off porch, house slave’

Actress Stacey Dash graciously tweeted out well wishes to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan for “fighting the good fight” last night. As Twitchy has reported, Ms. Dash has stood strong in her support for Romney and Ryan, in the face of  incredibly venomous hate:

She’s also standing with fellow actress Melissa Joan Hart.

To the sane, Dash’s tweet to Romney and Ryan last night could not be described as anything but gracious and kind. To the unhinged, bitter and venomous even when President Obama won his re-election bid, it was cause to spew the most vile hate. Again.

President Obama, leading by example: these supporters are serving up “revenge.” Once again, wishes for her death.

And vile filth, of course mixed with misogyny, repulsive racial slurs and epithets.

Sickening.

Indeed, it is. Conservative women and conservative minorities are the targets of the most vicious hate. Ms. Dash is on the receiving end of this vicious hate and stands strong. In fact, she remains a happy warrior.

We stand with you, Ms. Dash.

  • Sonya A. Willis

    Vile and digusting. I have no sympathy for the upcoming economic meltdown that’s about to befall these cretins. They project their own plantation mentality onto Ms. Dash. We are in deep trouble for the next several years to come.

  • Hello Jerry (D)

    And black people aren’t racist?

    • Overwhelmingryan

      Everyone can be racist.

      But no… black people aren’t inherently racist as you seemed to imply.

      • SometimesWise

        Overwhelmingryan Sooo – the reason that these people are upset with Ms. Dash is….??? I got the distinct impression that they are concerned that a black woman is supporting a white candidate, and that is somehow unacceptable. How is this attitude NOT racist?

        • Overwhelmingryan

          How is that even relevant to what I said? Read my post again.

          • Ironhawk86

            Really not into the whole reading comprehension thingy, are you? Publik ejukayshun strikes again.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Apparently you aren’t because it didn’t follow what I said at all. You’re completely lost. I said anyone can be racist, but that black people aren’t inherently racist.

            Then he (she?) responds with a rant about how those people who made those tweets are racist. Ok… Where did I deny that? I DIDN’T. He COMPLETELY missed my point and so did you.

            You’re completely illiterate.

          • Ironhawk86

            “Ok… Where did I deny that? I DIDN’T” Yeah. You tried to deflect from it like the coward you are. Just as bad. YOU are completely illiterate.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Ha! You just admitted you were wrong, but you did it in a roundabout way because YOU are the coward.

            You admitted that you jumped to conclusions.

          • Ironhawk86

            Deflection is a form of denial. If you had a brain, you’d understand that.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            The problem is that I didn’t deflect anything. Your desperate flailing is kinda cute. You’re grasping at straws.

          • Ironhawk86

            Yeah, you did. You bought in a total straw man that had nothing to do with subject at hand just to feel better about your side’s repulsive behavior. Once again, you are an illiterate dumbass.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            There was no strawman. This is proven by the fact that a couple people DID in fact try to argue that black people ARE inherently racist.

            I repeat: It wasn’t a strawman since that REALLY was a couple of people’s argument.

            You are wrong once again. You jumped to conclusions and now you’re too much of a coward to directly admit it.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Also I saw your comment that you deleted. You jumped the gun AGAIN. At least this time you were smart enough to notice it and try to hide your mistake.

            And in case it was an automatic deletion….

            Figures an illiterate dunce like you doesn’t get sarcasm.

          • Ironhawk86

            I didn’t delete a damn thing. Left-wing pussies like you whine to the mods cause of my bad language and then they go away. Shows what a worthless douche you are.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            You’re STILL going on about this? The moderator deleted it on his own because of how offensive it was. I didn’t report a damn thing.

            Time to get over it.

          • Ironhawk86

            Apparently neither you nor the mods have the balls to face reality.

          • Michael Rice

            Where did anyone imply, let alone say, blacks are inherently racist? WHy are you replying to someone you claim can’t read? are you inherently stupid?

          • Overwhelmingryan

            I admit that I was reaching, but I was proven right by a couple of people later actually trying to argue that blacks ARE inherently racist.

      • SometimesWise

        Overwhelmingryan Sooo – the reason that these people are upset with Ms. Dash is….??? I got the distinct impression that they are concerned that a black woman is supporting a white candidate, and that is somehow unacceptable. How is this attitude NOT racist?

      • ZoriahShepard

        Is it only black people that aren’t inherently racist? Or is it only white people who are inherently racist?

        • http://twitter.com/yahneverknowCB yahneverknow

          I’m yellow. What does that make me?

        • Overwhelmingryan

          Umm… what?

          Where did I say anything about white people? Man, you people are defensive.

          • Michael Rice

            Defensive, by asking a question? Where was inherrent racism by blakcs implied?

      • ZoriahShepard

        Is it only black people that aren’t inherently racist? Or is it only white people who are inherently racist?

      • cacman93

        If that’s true, than presiden’t obama’s votes should be around 50/50 with romney right?

        98% of the blacks voted for Obama, why is that?

        • Overwhelmingryan

          Blacks already overwhelmingly supported democrats.

          But don’t let facts get in the way of your rampant racism.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JNDO34ZA5VOFYSY7OON7GED45A sweetpea

          Because we are not rich and would like to see tax reform. Despite what Fox news tells you black people do work.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Nice to see another reasonable voice in here.

          • Ironhawk86

            You obviously don’t

          • Michael Rice

            And regardless of waht CNN, NBC< ABC, NPR,etc tell you, not everyone who voted for Romney is rich and white.

      • scalzo

        Yes they are!

      • Ironhawk86

        Agreed. But it seems to any impartial observer that virtually all the bigotry in this country for the past 20 years has come from black leftists.

        • Overwhelmingryan

          Are you kidding me? The sheer amount of bigotry from the right has been insane. They’re the ones trying to stop homosexuals from getting equal rights.

          • Ironhawk86

            Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. All they want is to change the institution of marriage to accommodate them and their tax returns. Both of which are moot points in my book as the income tax should be abolished and marriage shouldn’t be a function of the state anyway.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            No. They. Don’t

            I’m tired of this awful argument. It’s incredibly condescending. They can’t marry who they want. Also “Separate, but equal” is NOT equal. Figures that you would rather abolish marriage as a function of the state than let homosexuals get a hold of it.

            But more and more states are allowing it. Your bigoted views of old are getting left behind.

          • Michael Rice

            Nope, he said it shouldn’t be one to beign with…stop putting words in people’s mouths

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Most people who have that view only recently adopted it BECAUSE of the push for gay marriage.

          • TexSizzle

            That’s because such idiocy never entered our minds before the push for homosexual “marriage”.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Read my other posts to you.

          • TexSizzle

            I have read your other posts, and you just repeat the same old, tired arguments in favor of re-defining the meaning of the term marriage.

          • TexSizzle

            Yes. They. Do. Heterosexuals can’t always marry whom they want either. But marriage is, and always has been, between a man, the bridegroom, and a woman, the bride. Multiple marriage (polygamy) is multiple cases of one man and one woman. Under polygamy, a man with four wives is, where legal, a partner in four marriages.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            You bringing up ridiculous fringe examples doesn’t help you. Your kind recycles the same old tired arguments. You’re not willing to consider my side at all. I used to think like you until I stopped being so damn stubborn.

            If you saw a women, you would assume she can marry. If you saw a man, you would assume he can marry. Those two people would be able to marry each other if they wanted. Let’s say there is a second guy in addition to the first guy. If you saw him, you would assume that he can marry too. But if those two guys wanted to marry each other, then they are unable to marry in most states. HOW HOW HOW is that equal rights? Are you really this dense? Did interracial couples have equal rights before interracial marriage was allowed?

            Yes, heterosexuals do have restrictions when it comes to marriage. Some of those restrictions have legitimate reasons, some are a little more arbitrary. It’s irrelevant anyway since the effort to legalize gay marriage isn’t somehow de-legitimized just because other restrictions would still exist. That logic is completely silly. This debate is about gay marriage. Not polygamy. Not incestuous marriage. Not any other insane irrelevant example you could come up with. Stop with the red herrings. You’re grasping at straws

            There is NO legitimate arguments behind not allowing gay marriage. If Josh and Steve want to marry each other, it doesn’t affect you ONE DAMN BIT. You’re trying to impose your biblical rules on people who want no part of it. Two people can get married in a courthouse with NO religious themes whatsoever. This secular marriage has NOTHING to do with your biblical marriage. You have no damn business trying to push your religion on it.

            I can shoot down any argument you come up with. I’ve heard them all before.

            (excuse any spelling, punctuation, or grammar errors)

          • TexSizzle

            You can keep repeating the same garbage over and over, but it isn’t shooting down the arguments. Apparently it’s just arguing hoping we’ll give up because of being out-shouted, so to speak, the same way leftists on TV and on some campuses try to keep the truth from being heard by shouting it down. It won’t work.

          • TexSizzle

            That’s right: a man cannot marry another man because marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. Again, you are arguing not for marriage as it is, but to *change* the definition of marriage. What is so difficult for you to understand about that? Two men or two women can live together the same as a man and woman who are not married. Why do you insist on re-defining the meaning of *marriage*?

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Is that really the only thing you can muster? If so, I will continue to obliterate that argument over and over again until you stop being
            stubborn.

            Unsurprisingly, You have ignored the bulk of my arguments. I have shot down every single one of your arguments and all you can say is “nu uh!”. All you’re doing right now is repeating yourself. You’re not even countering any of my arguments.

            Marriage used to be between a man and a woman of the same race. Then marriage got “redefined”. Do you have a problem with that? I’m NOT having trouble understanding that I want to “redefine” or change (secular) marriage. That’s exactly what I and many others want to do. Your entire argument rests upon the silly assumption that redefining marriage is a despicable thing to do. It isn’t. It has already been done, and marriage was all the better for it. That is… unless you think people of different races shouldn’t be able to marry each other.

            As I already said, secular marriage has nothing to do with your divine marriage. THEY ARE SEPARATE. You have no business pushing your religion on it. No one is redefining your biblical marriage. It will be exactly as it was. However, State sanctioned secular marriage will be altered. Just like it already has been in multiple states. Just like it was when people of different races were allowed to marry each other. Quit ignoring me. Did you know people used to use that same exact “redefine” argument to try to stop interracial marriage? History repeats itself because people like you are too ignorant to learn from it.

            It wouldn’t affect you one single iota if two men or two women were allowed to marry each other. Were you affected when it was legalized in Massachusetts? What about New York? Were you affected in some negative way when two guys got married yesterday in New York? What about when it was recently legalized in Maryland, Washington, and Maine?

            And while we’re on the subject… notice how more and more states are legalizing it? Notice how it’s gaining more and more support across the country? Your kind is losing this battle. Slowly, but surely. Your antiquated views will be looked at the same way those who were against interracial marriage are looked at today. Get with the times or get left behind. In the end, I don’t need you agree with me. I and everyone else who supports gay marriage just needs your views to become irrelevant. And that’s well on its way to happening.

            Address my arguments. Stop dodging them.

            (excuse any spelling, punctuation, or grammar errors)

          • TexSizzle

            You admit you are trying to re-define marriage. Your repetition of the same old arguments will not convince me to change, and my statement of the way it is will not convince you to change, so why not give it up. You claim to have shot down my arguments, but all you’ve done is made counter-arguments. Declaring yourself the winner does not make it so.
            With the exception of two states earlier this week, every time your side has tried to re-define marriage at the ballot box has failed. So I guess zero to one to two could be considered “more and more”, as one is more than zero and two is more than one. I don’t consider “legalization” by judicial fiat to represent, in any way, the will of the people. And even if it is legal, that does not make it moral or right.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Once again, you have ignored me and just repeated yourself without addressing the bulk of my arguments. You are unable or unwilling to listen to reason. All you can do is rant about the evils of “redefining” marriage without giving any thought to what I’m saying. Which is likely an argument that was drilled into your head by any number of right-wing Christian sources. Read my post. Seriously, READ IT. I addressed ALL OF THIS already multiple times. You don’t like me declaring myself the victor? Then address my arguments. Prove me wrong. You think I’m not open to a good point? I used to be against gay marriage until I stopped shutting out what the opposition was saying. I could no longer deny what they were saying. Even plenty of Christians support homosexual’s right to marry.

            Civil rights shouldn’t be left up to the majority in the first place, but it’s all the sweeter that the majority voted for it in 3 states. More and more people throughout the country are supporting it. This number increases all the time. It is inevitable. What your Bible says about right or wrong is entirely irrelevant when talking about state sanctioned SECULAR marriage. Your biblical marriage (although true biblical marriage would be polygamy) would stay the same. It would not be touched. STOP IGNORING ME. You cannot come up with a legitimate secular reason for not allowing gay marriage. All you can do is cite the same thousands year old book that is so commonly used to justify bigotry. Why should the bible dictate what two atheists are able to do? What about two Muslims?

            Continue to cling to your bigoted, antiquated views. You’re fighting a losing battle.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            I read some of your past comments and I really wish I hadn’t. Your total lack of logic is evident in many of your posts.

            You’re so far down the right-wing, Christian, conspiracy rabbit hole that I don’t think you’re ever coming back out.

            If you only listen to a single thing I say then let it be this:

            I urge you to look into skeptic literature. A good start would be “The Demon-Haunted World”. I know what you’ll probably be thinking: “Eww… a dirty liberal atheist book”. It’s a very well respected book from a well respected author. If you read that book and don’t come away with a more healthy and skeptical mind, then you are beyond reason anyway. It’s not an attempt to convert you, it’s an attempt to give you a less paranoid and more healthy interpretation of the events around you.

          • Catherine Smart

            What you have seem to have overlooked in your zealousness to defend your stance is that even interracial marriages still consists of ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN. What the LGBT community is fighting for doesn’t even compare to what African Americans had to fight for just to be seen as human beings, and you equate your fight with that!

          • Overwhelmingryan

            What you have overlooked is the massive moving of the goal-posts. Back then people used the argument that marriage is defined as “a man and a women of the same race”. It was unthinkable to them to change it. But it DID get changed.

            Now people are shouting about marriage being defined as “between a man and a women”. The goal posts have moved, and once again people are acting like it would be unthinkable to change it.

            “African Americans had to fight for just to be seen as human beings”

            You don’t think the same applies to homosexuals? You are incredibly naive. I’ve seen the massive hate many homosexuals receive. Many of them run the risk of being disowned by their family when they come out. Do not attempt to minimize their struggle. And get this…. many people think they don’t deserve equal rights! Imagine that!

            And really the entire point of me bringing that up interracial marriage was to show that the definition of (state sanctioned secular) marriage HAS changed before. So changing it again is not as insane as you make it out to be.

            Which I’m really just indulging your appeal to tradition fallacy in the first place. I don’t care if it hadn’t been changed before. That doesn’t mean that homosexuals don’t deserve the right to marry.

          • Gallatin

            Please name an equal right that we are denying homosexuals.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            They can’t marry who they want. They’re not attracted to the opposite sex. They’re denied the right to marry the person they choose. Don’t be dense with that ridiculous argument. You parrot it without understanding how utterly stupid it is.

            And please don’t follow up with that ridiculous “Are you saying they should be able to marry children or a tree?” argument.

          • Gallatin

            I’m sure you’ve heard the saying; “Be careful what you wish for.” What I find hysterical is homosexuals actually believe that dimocrats care about their standing in society. I’m fine with homosexuals getting married, and I’ll be smiling when they find out the truth as to why dimocrats support their right to do so.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Uh uh…. Whatever you say.

          • Gallatin

            The dimocrats in Washington have set the table er trap for homosexuals, immigrants, and women they are about to reap what they have sown; all three groups are going to wish for a more powerful second or third party to save them.

          • Michael Rice

            Ok, here is one. I have seen a couple sites pushing for cousins to be able to be married? Do you think that would be ok?
            How about a guy having multiple wives?
            Here is a goodie. What if my daughter and I want to get married/ Two consenting adults and all that stuff..

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Cousins? Sure why not. I don’t care.

            Multiple wives? No, that creates far too many issue with taxes and all the benefits that marriages gives.

            You and your daughter? I don’t care, but that’s kind of creepy.

          • pastor d

            I need to ask this: You think marriage is a right? Millions and millions of people live together without the spiritual commitment of marriage. Why is it necessary for a certain group of people to think that they should impose on a group of other people who believe in biblical marriage (one man – one woman)? And when that first group doesn’t like it they start the name-calling (bigot). I don’t get ya.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Well as long as heterosexuals have the right to marry, then homosexuals should have it too. Yes, millions of people live together, but they don’t receive the countless legal benefits of marrying.

            NO ONE is imposing on your biblical marriage. State sanctioned marriage is completely separate from your “holy” marriage. Are two atheists imposing on you by getting married in a courthouse? No because it has nothing to do with your biblical marriage. THAT’S why you’re a bigot. Because YOU want to impose your biblical rules in places that they have no business. Mind your own damn business and you won’t get called a bigot anymore. No churches would be forced to marry a gay couple. Churches still have the right to discriminate against whoever they wish. That’s why there was a church that didn’t get in trouble for refusing to marry/wed a black heterosexual couple. That’s why Catholics don’t get in trouble for not allowing female priests. Regions are given special treatment in this country. Which might explain why many of you start crying from the mountaintops whenever the slightest thing doesn’t go your way. You’re just so used to getting your way.

          • TexSizzle

            Homosexuals have the right to marry. What they want is to change the definition of marriage.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            I already responded to this crap. Repeating it doesn’t make it any less crap.

            Did you even bother to read what I said in that long post? It’s pretty damn clear that you didn’t. Too much logic and reason for you? Are you really so dug into your religious based bigotry that you refuse to consider what I’m saying?

          • TexSizzle

            Repeating *your* crap doesn’t make it any less crap, and denying the truth, as you’re doing, doesn’t make it any less true.

          • pastor d

            Hey friend – why the hostility? I simply asked you a couple questions to get a handle on your thoughts. I didn’t call you any names or berate you for what you believe. Good grief! Cant’ even ask a liberal a question without intolerance and name-calling. Sorry to offend you but you don’t seem to feel the same way. Have a nice day anyway.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Because I’m tired of people trying to deny homosexuals equal rights for no good reason.

          • Catherine Smart

            It isn’t bigotry to have a differing opinion and to fight for that opinion. Your stance is your opinion and you are fighting for that opinion, are you a bigot for doing that? Are you then doing the same by imposing your views on those who believe in the Biblical Christian definition of marriage?

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Umm… if the “opinion’ oppresses others for no good reason, then yes it is wrong. People like you are actively pushing to stop them from getting equal rights. Once again your argument boils down to “Stop being intolerant of my intolerance!”. As I said, I’ve heard every anti-gay marriage argument countless times, and every single one of them is weak.

            And as I already said a million times. NO ONE IS TOUCHING YOUR BIBLICAL MARRIAGE. State sanctioned secular marriage is completely separate. You have no right to push your religion on it. Two atheists can get married in a court house with no religious themes whatsoever. Here I am repeating myself for like the 3rd time because apparently some people have trouble reading.

            I honestly don’t mean offense by this, but you clearly aren’t very educated on this subject.

          • Catherine Smart

            So you are the one who decides what a good reason is? Aren’t you then being the one who is intolerant of someone else’s differing view. You call anti-gay marriage argument weak but when someone says the same thing about pro-gay marriage arguments its being intolerant. You had better watch out with the whole moving the goal post thing because sooner or later you are going to have to also go to bat for those who want polygamy legalized for the same reasons, but you have labelled them a fringe element. Wasn’t that what homosexuals were referred to at one point. I don’t think anyone here sees you shooting down any arguments. You are however making your own ignorance and bigotry known.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            I say that there is no good reason because your kind rarely actually responds to my counter arguments. Once your canned arguments are defeated you have no idea what to do. You think there is good reason to continue to oppress homosexuals? Then list them. And make sure it’s something that I haven’t already addressed several times. You know how arguments work right? You gave your argument and then I gave my counter argument. Now if you still stand by your original argument then offer a counter for my counter. NONE of you have done that. You’ve simply repeated the original argument. This is because you haven’t put any real thought into the issue. You just regurgitate the same canned arguments that have been drilled into your brain. Because for some reason, you’re all convinced that it will affect you (or anyone for that matter) negatively if Josh and Steve get married.

            Why do you keep on using the “stop being intolerant of my intolerance!” argument? Do you really think that’s a good argument?

            As far as polygamy goes… The legalities of marriage would be very hard to sort out when more than two people are involved. Certain legal benefits would have to be heavily altered or removed altogether. There are definitely legitimate issues to consider. This is not the case for gay marriage. The jump to gay marriage is no more or less significant than the jump to interracial marriage was. That said, I actually wouldn’t have a problem with polygamy as long as they could make the legal stuff work (would be a huge challenge). One battle at a time. This is about gay marriage, not what you think might happen several years down the line. And when did I label polygamy and its supporters a fringe element? I never used that argument to dismiss them and for good reason. Don’t put arguments in my mouth.

            No one is (seemingly, but you’d be surprised) receptive to my arguments because brainwashing is hard to undo. You all think alike, and you probably spend most if not all of your time in an echo chamber.

            “You are however making your own ignorance and bigotry known.”

            Are you once again telling me to stop being intolerant of your intolerance? Are you continuing to argue that I’m the true bigot for daring to call people like you out for actively oppressing homosexuals?

            Stop adhering so rigidly to your pre-programmed arguments and actually stop to think for a moment.

          • Catherine Smart

            I believe that they are afforded the rights to a civil union, which gives them the same rights as married couples. We are just fighting for the right to keep the word marriage to mean one man and one woman. How is that denying them rights. Its funny how the left is only tolerant and accepting of views that line up with their own and quite intolerant towards those that have differing views.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Wrong. Civil unions are actually missing many of the benefits that marriages gives.

            And separate but equal is NOT equal.

            “Quit being intolerant of my intolerance!”

            All I can do is laugh when people use that argument.

          • Ironhawk86

            Oh, and you might want to inquire further about the racial makeup of the people who most consistently vote down gay marriage.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            You mean blacks? Yes that’s unfortunate.

            I’m assuming you were attempting to make some stupid point, but it failed.

          • Ironhawk86

            You’re too stupid to comprehend any point.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Ha! So in other words, you had no idea where you were going with that. Figures.

          • Ironhawk86

            The charge against gay marriage isn’t be lead by crusty old white men as per your liberal narrative. Its being voted down by the same black and hispanics that turned out for Obama. But the left doesn’t want to admit cause then they’d shuffle all the victim cards in their deck.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Wrong.

            The charge is being led by old people in general. Old minorities are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Just like most other stubborn old people. Younger minorities are far more open to it. Just like many other younger people. That’s why it’s becoming more and more accepted as time goes on. The young is replacing the new.

          • Michael Rice

            Disagree with someone’s life CHOICE and you are a bigot. SPew this vile because someone votes for a Republican and well, it’s all good. By the way, I think people who smoke weed are wrong, too. Am I a weed bigot.?

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Please tell me that you’re not saying that homosexuality is a choice. That’s incredibly ignorant. Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? No, it was “automatic”. You can’t make yourself attracted to the opposite or same sex if you just don’t feel anything. I look at another guy and I just don’t feel a sexual attraction to him. It just isn’t there. A homosexual guy looks at a girl and he also wouldn’t feel any sexual attraction to her.

            And honestly, you would still be a bigot even if it WAS a choice.

            It wouldn’t affect you AT ALL if two guys or two girls got married. Why do you even care? It’s mind boggling.

            And about the weed. I would no longer use the word bigot, but yes it is ridiculous that you have a problem with people smoking weed. I hope that you’re also against alcohol. You have to stay consistent.

          • TexSizzle

            Homosexuals have equal rights. What they want to do is re-define terms and have special privileges.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Special privileges? Are you serious? The sheer level of delusion it must take to have such a view. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry who they want, but homosexuals are not allowed to marry who they want. HOW is that equal rights?

            Were interracial couples asking for “special privileges” when they asked to be able to marry?

            Get a grip

          • TexSizzle

            All people are entitled to marry anyone of the opposite sex whom they are legally allowed to marry, as long as the other person wants to marry them. That’s equal rights. What the homosexuals want to do is *change* the definition of marriage. All your pontificating to the contrary will *not* change that fact.

          • http://twitter.com/kyleco kyleco

            Perhaps the issue here is the misperception that gay couples have the same rights as straight couples. In fact there are around 1,200 rights/protections/benefits afforded to U.S. citizens upon marriage by the federal government including Social Security benefits, veterans’ benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, immigration law, etc…all of which are unavailable to gay couples due to the Defense of Marriage Act (even if the couple’s state allows and recognizes gay marriage). Further, as Federal Court continues to hear cases regarding DOMA, it is being found unconstitutional. Personally I disagree with the notion that this is a matter of “redefining” marriage, since that’s what DOMA did in the first place. Just on the surface alone it should be obvious that federal rights/benefits afforded to one type of couple and not another is unconstitutional. I certainly wasn’t around when miscegenation laws were in place, but it is very clear to the vast majority of our modern population that these laws were (and are) wrong. Just as it doesn’t make sense to withhold these rights from couples who happen to be attracted to those of a different ethnicity, it doesn’t make sense to withhold the rights from folks who are attracted to the same sex. Before I have to hear the “slippery slope” argument (…”But then people will want to marry their goats!”) I’ll address that one as well. Goats aren’t people. Goats can’t speak for themselves and we therefore would never be able to determine if it was their will to be married to a human. Further, no sane person would suggest that we allow inter-species sexual relations or marriage. The only respectable argument I can imagine that is not in favor of gay marriage is one based on religion. To that I say simply; no church would (or should) ever be required to recognize or marry same-sex couples. Quite frankly it is in nobody’s interest to have this happen. This is a discussion about federal recognition, not an attempt to force a religious group to change their beliefs or force them to do anything their religion may prohibit. So just as they are free to practice and believe their religion, same sex couples should be able to have the freedom *from* that religion and still be afforded federal rights.

      • my preciousss!!

        she’s just speaking in “general” terms…which means that she’s blanketing all black people in the US with that statement, which means …. there are exceptions and this is not absolute. now if she had said ‘black panther group is racist’, i would agree.

      • http://twitter.com/JLG1956 Jerome Goolsby

        I disagree….I used to live in Washington DC area and the racism between light skin and dark skin blacks is incredible.

        • Ironhawk86

          Another one of those politically incorrect factoids the liberal media would not have you know about.

      • Michael Rice

        The point was liberals constantly claim black not only are not, but at times, incapable fo being racist.

        • Overwhelmingryan

          I have NEVER heard a liberal claim that. And I frequent some pretty liberal forums. I have, however, heard plenty of conservatives CLAIMING that liberals say that.

    • Victor Kahuro

      Am guessing black libs are being taught to be racist. Not to whites but other black conservatives. I mean where does an African American get-off calling another African American a house slave?

  • TEXANONLY

    no more mr nice conservative, you spew venom , guess what so can I. Bring it on you black racists.

    • Overwhelmingryan

      There never has been a “Mr nice conservative”.

      • TEXANONLY

        hey over , jump

        • Overwhelmingryan

          What?

          • cgraham77

            I think you mean “how high.”

        • Overwhelmingryan

          What?

      • ZoriahShepard

        By that logic, there’s never been a “smart liberal”.

      • ZoriahShepard

        By that logic, there’s never been a “smart liberal”.

      • Gallatin

        You’re a tool.

        • Overwhelmingryan

          Thanks

          • Gallatin

            What you’re still here? Go home.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            I guess you’re still a little sore about Obama winning. Don’t worry, it’ll pass.

          • Gallatin

            No actually I find it kind of funny, the next 4 years will the most miserable years in the little man’s life.

          • Overwhelmingryan

            Ah yes… a spiteful conservative. It’s unfortunate that there are so many of you these days.

          • Gallatin

            Yes you pegged it, and if that crybaby rino boehner reaches across the aisle, across the street, or across town to do anything with the dimocrats but cut taxes I hope he gets right wing hell rained down on him.

          • Ironhawk86

            Figures an illiterate retard like you would consider that a compliment. I mean you clearly don’t have the mental capacity for sarcasm.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JNDO34ZA5VOFYSY7OON7GED45A sweetpea

      Black racist…what is that?

  • Conrad2010

    OBAMA WINS! Hollywood Collectively Orgasms.

    • Guest

      I’m not cleaning it up!

  • Tootie MCGee

    “You’re a slave RT @REALStaceyDash Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan. You fought the Good Fight and I am proud! @MittRomney @RepPaulRyan”
    Wow, shocked that he used the correct spelling of “you’re”!
    I’ll need a translator for the rest.

    • brianmouland

      Its a rather new language think its called mommys basement dwelling unproductive troll

    • brianmouland

      Its a rather new language think its called mommys basement dwelling unproductive troll

  • brianmouland

    Thankfully with the election over these cretins can climb back under their rocks for the next few years

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg Booker

    Please pray for this country in the weeks, months and years ahead.

  • TundraThunder

    Hopefully, the next generation of those degenerates will seek the truth, but I have my doubts.

  • MoxieLouise

    Could someone please translate these Tweets for me? The only ones I understand are Stacey’s and Ethan’s. I don’t speak whatever that is.

  • LordLieutenant

    Ye shall know them by their fruits.

  • http://twitter.com/RedZhenia Zhenia Oleynik

    What’s unbelievable is that those people have votes (and they count the same as mine).

    • Carrie

      Yes and they breed like flies too. Sad day for REAL PATRIOTS! !

    • Carrie

      Yes and they breed like flies too. Sad day for REAL PATRIOTS! !

    • TexSizzle

      Possibly more, depending on if they stopped at one vote.

  • http://twitter.com/samagee Tom Bannigan

    Would it help to report these hate crimes to the FBI? lol

  • http://twitter.com/samagee Tom Bannigan

    Would it help to report these hate crimes to the FBI? lol

  • http://twitter.com/MchaelMcTroller Michael McTroller

    So Black people cannot choose to support another party without other Blacks pathetically insulting them!?

  • http://twitter.com/MchaelMcTroller Michael McTroller

    So Black people cannot choose to support another party without other Blacks pathetically insulting them!?

  • cgraham77

    Considering black Democrats are towing the line for the Party of The KKK, Jim Crow, etc., it’s ironic they accuse blacks who leave the DEMOCRATIC PLANTATION of being “house slaves.”

    There’s a word for this…it’s called PROJECTION!!

    • cgraham77

      Actually, I take part of that back.

      “Projection” would require that those were actually aware of the history of their own party. A better suited word would be IGNORANCE.

  • Lovetorun2

    This was translated from a Prague newspaper after Obama won in 2008 – still applicable today (probably even more so):

    “The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama residency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem
    is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of
    what ails America. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the
    vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

    The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their President.” (again).

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JNDO34ZA5VOFYSY7OON7GED45A sweetpea

    I see the right wing are sore losers we all know dash done this for publicity. She has not been on TV for a long time. So if she is saying she did this because of taxes she makes no money so pays no taxes. I don’t think she has ever been political.

  • nc

    Ms. Dash is a much braver person than I’ll ever be. I hope she has inspired other young black women to be true to themselves.

  • michael s

    Stacey doesn’t deserve this . she never did . she picked the wrong guy but the heinous racist tweets and posts should cease.

  • Timothy Noonan

    Arrogant for any celebrity to use “real…” in twitter handles, as if another person with same name is not real.

  • $1014973

    At the end of the day, Stacey Dash is too hot to be a democrat.

  • Chico Escobar

    No. Black people can’t be racist because they have no power to effect the racism on others! .. so sez Rev Jackson! Not sure how that works out when the POTUS is a racist, but what do I know. =]

  • Victor Kahuro

    Stacey Dash and Melissa Joan Hart STAND STRONG.

  • Victor Kahuro

    Looks like Mister Community Organiser is organising people to engage in class warfare, race warfare and sex warfare. The problem is not dems who always seem fact less nowadays, the problem is some guy who promised bipartisanship but is now really polarising the country. I mean this is a president who ran a popularity campaign implying that voting for him is the cool thing to do. God help us.

  • Michael Rice

    SOmeone tweets “Like seriously”, while trying to insult another person’s intelligence.

  • Lisa 670

    I don’t care if they are black or white. They are sad and obviously uneducated because they have a very limited vocabulary with which to express themselves.

  • Lisa 670

    I don’t care if they are black or white. They are sad and obviously uneducated because they have a very limited vocabulary with which to express themselves.

  • http://twitter.com/MaryUK Mary

    And they say the right are racist!!!

  • Dan

    Dear Stacy and Melissa, please stay classy! You are above all the vie hate spewed out. We know that you’re real and good and we want you to know that you’re loved!

  • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton
  • http://www.rockingjamboree.com/ Russ Rogers

    No mention of how Sandra Fluke supported Stacey Dash when she first tweeted her endorsement of Mitt Romney? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/sandra-fluke-stacey-dash_n_1951205.html

    I thought twitchy LOVED Sandra Fluke?

    Why would you give MORE publicity to TROLLS? Were any of those TROLLS worthy of note, of the stature of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter?

  • http://twitter.com/kyleco kyleco
  • Blackspots

    Ah yes, so many liberals showing their liberal tolerance.

  • Overwhelmingryan

    Uhh… yeah. That’s exactly what I said you said, you illiterate dunce.

  • Ironhawk86

    What I said: marriage shouldn’t be a function of the state

    What you said I said: “you would rather abolish marriage as a function of the state than let homosexuals get a hold of it.”

    I’m sure your unionized government school indoctrinator got around to the basics of the English language, but those are clearly NOT the same thing and that fact you think they are proves you’re an ignorant moron.

  • Overwhelmingryan

    Those are exactly the same thing, you impossible fool. Keep reading it until it clicks.

  • Ironhawk86

    People like you are why I favor literacy tests for voting.

  • Overwhelmingryan

    Still hasn’t clicked?

    I’ll try to help your little brain out.

    You said that “marriage shouldn’t be a function of the state”. MEANING that it would still exist separate from the state.

    I said that you want “marriage abolished as a function of the state”. MEANING that it would still exist separate from the state.

    THOSE ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Do you get it yet?

  • WilliamAmos

    Both of you need to knock it off. I will keep deleting your comments take your fight elsewhere.

  • Ironhawk86

    You are wrongfully trying to ascribe motive (that I’m doing it to prevent gays from marrying) to why I think marriage shouldn’t be a state function. That motive you tried to pin on me is WRONG. And you’re still an illiterate dumbass.

  • Michael Rice

    You said he wanted to abolish instead of letting homos get ahold of it…big difference…moron.

  • Ironhawk86

    People like you suck all the fun out of the internet.

  • Ironhawk86

    Finally! ‘Bout goddamn time someone came around with a understanding of the nuances of the English language. God knows these bitchy mods haven’t been any help. You people still defending that racist Colin Powell from big bad John Sununu?

  • Overwhelmingryan

    State marriage has nothing to do with his “godly” marriage. There doesn’t even need to be any overlap.

    I made a guess on the motive… and I’m probably right.

  • Overwhelmingryan

    Umm… I’m really not sure what you’re going on about now. It doesn’t seem to follow what I said.