Comments

1
So they are pro-subculture fighting and violence in the streets then. Because ultimately if they propose a world where anyone with a business or service can ban anyone they please from using that business/service, then the banned person &/or group will be pissed, and may retaliate, and eventually someone along the line will commit arson or window smashing or maybe even a murder as emotions run high and higher.

Essentially, National Review is promulgating the enhancement of our current, stupid, emotionalist politics. "Political decision via pure emotion and unreasoned personal bias".

So THIS is what it's like to watch your empire crumbling.
Noted.
2
The obvious difference between discrimination based on sexual orientation and race is that gay people can more easily pass as straight while black people can't generally pass as white. Which is why gay people tend to be discriminated against when they call attention to themselves by holding hands, kissing in public, bringing their partner to a company picnic, coming out, or getting married.

Progress over the last couple years has been amazing, but gay people still can't even get married in many states. Gay people face violence even on Capital Hill and it can be downright dangerous in rural areas. Kids are still kicked out by their parents upon coming out. A direct comparison with Alabama in the fifties may be overwrought, but for an individual who faces discrimination or violence the results can be just as damaging.
3
They want a theocracy, plain and simple. And I think we've seen history give theocracies a big thumbs down. I don't care how many guns they have, this will never be a goddamn theocracy!
4
@1 That's why you needs lots of guns, to kill those angry minorities.
5
You know who's great? That Cyrus from 'Scandal.'
6
As if gays weren't oppressed throughout history? Blacks in this country have been enslaved and disenfranchised, but gays have been less exploited and more brutalized.
Idiot says something stupid, twist your panties over the film at eleven.
7
What is important to remember about National Review is that it was started w/ money that Buckley inherited, and it would go bankrupt if it weren't supported by very wealthy donors.

In essence, it is a magazine by the aristocracy, to impose their values on the rest of America. They are the sort of people who would have supported King George 250 years ago.
8
gays more brutalized than enslaved blacks? were those slaves kept in line by property rights brainwashing? did all of those wooden boats make it across the Atlantic? did the intermingling of hella different West African tribes in packed ship holds not lead to some pretty serious disease?

I sometimes submit articles to National Review because I feel like it's got the lowest standards and someday I'll be published
9
Oh, shut the hell up with this nonsense. National Review is not now nor has it ever been for segregation. Quit being hysterical.
10
Damn, you leftists are stupid. NR is a great magazine.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.