[Mike Irwin]

"I really don't see the correlation between the chicks and this."


"I've got it and I'm pretty sure I'm made it clear I've got it."

No, you obviously don't have it.

You're still not drawing the clear connection between one individuals action and a second individuals right to react to the first individual's action.

All you can do is patter on about how horrible we big bullies are for holding someone accountable for actions that we find to be incompatible with our beliefs and to alerting others who may be of the same belief.

But but but but but but but... He may have a different reason for voting for Obama?

So what? That still doesn't mean the he can't and shouldn't be held accountable for something that offends our beliefs.

All you're doing is engaging in a morally bankrupt game of "everything everybody does is OK because they believe in it, and no one has the right to say anything to them about it."

That kind of cowardly thinking is, in large part, why the United States is where it is politicially today. Morally bereft politicians pandering to the lowest common denominator in an effort to protect not their constituents or their nation, but their jobs, has become the norm.

God forbid anyone take a stance on anything or be responsible for anything because it upsets the lowest common denominators who collectively buy into that crap.

It's disgusting, it's reprehensible, and it's bereft of character.

But, then again, those are strong beliefs, and under the "new" mindless morality strong negative beliefs aren't allowed because they might damage the flow of the new neutral collective morality.