Fighting fire with fire?

Gays don't understand why some people don't support their "cause". Well, some do it for religious reasons, some do it out of spite because of negative experiences, and then some do it because gays are doing hateful things to straights out of spite.

When gays talk down and insult blacks, they are encouraging blacks NOT to support their cause. When gays talk about denying innocent people blood, they give people reasons not to support their cause (who wants to give rights to inhuman immoral people?).

Essentially, people are revolting from the gays anti-heterosexual movement.

Gay people call anyone and everyone homophobes. If you support giving blood, to them you are a homophobe. If you rationalize peoples reasonings for being against gay rights, you are considered a homophobe.

In the end, gay people are their own worst enemy. They are like atheists, they get in a tiff over every little issue and demand to punish the world because of it. Fighting every battle is not going to help you guys out.

Blaming us straight people, us black people...is not going to help your cause. That is why I no longer support gays...I got fed up with their hate and rude and despicable behavior.

Banning blood drives

Its a scary thought that high schools and colleges can and do ban the Red Cross from performing blood drives.

How can anyone hate the Red Cross? Oh, they don't they just hate the fact that the FDA won't allow gays to give blood.

So essentially the Red Cross, which is opposed to the FDA's stance is being blamed for the FDA decision to ban gay who have had sex from donating blood.

Colleges around the US have been banning the Red Cross from blood drives as a result.

I am very against this. I can understand wanting gays to give blood, there is no real point to banning them if the Red Cross tests blood for HIV now anyways. But to fight this by punishing victims in need of blood is wrong.

There is a shortage of blood supplies...so what people are proposing is making it even shorter because in their opinion the FDA will have to respond.

But ask yourself this, what if a family member needed blood and there wasn't enough due to an increased shortage? Would you be changing the tune of your voice all of a sudden?

In the end, why make the victims who need blood suffer all because of political agendas?

There are others ways to fight the FDA without punishing people for something they have no control over.

I just don't like the idea of toying with human life for this cause. Its disrespectful and dangerous.

Its scary how anyone can deny saving a human life like that. Punishing all for one does not help the situation.

Its a sociopathic response.

The way I like to look at history

For me, I am not just about facts and figures when it comes to history.

I like the personal stories.

Think along the lines of the fake diary series Dear America, which is about girls living in America of different social standing and race...and most importantly each girl of each book is of a specific time period.

Although the books are fake, it shows the kind of history most of us are into.

Just look at a movie like Titanic. They have done thousands of documentaries since but only those who love Titanic watch them...but you can find millions who love the theatrical film Titanic, why? They made it personal.

When we get to read the diary or know the personal story of someone, it makes us feel closer, it makes them less of a figure and statistic and more of a person.

When talking about war, what really grabs the attention of the average person? Is it the play by play of battles won or is the personal stories of what war life was like?

We feel a connection when we look at history through a more vivid and personal detail of someone, often a regular person such as ourselves, through their own eyes.

When history is nothing more than a recount of just the incident itself, it feels void, like its just an overview. It can feel somewhat boring. But when a person who lived in that time recounted their experience in a letter or whatnot, we feel a better connection.

Maybe it the rich vs. poor ideals in the regular person's mind...to hear from an average joe just feels more legit, more interesting than that of some rich person...You could say we all relate in the struggles, albeit different struggles.

My Views on Alcoholism

I am staunchly against alcohol, therefore I take very little pity over alcoholics. The same with smokers.

When it comes to who gets an organ, I think smokers, druggies (like heroin, cocaine etc), and alcoholics should be at the bottom.

I don't apply that logic to obesity though, or cancers, or diabetes or accidents or any of that, to me those should not be grounds for being at the bottom of the list.

People say alcoholism is a disease. I am sorry but you chose to drink. Yeah no one sets out to become addicts, but its obvious that its a possibility when you start drinking it.

I am sure the addiction is hard to beat, but the truth is, its a severe addiction not a disease.

A disease has to do with the body...you don't automatically just become an alcoholic out of nowhere, NO! You had to start drinking it first, something you chose to do logically.

People calling alcoholism a disease is like excusing drunk driving.

It causes people to take less personal responsibility in trying to quit. Just like with being overweight, its not a disease, its a lifestyle choice that can result in one having diseases, just the same with smoking.

Not only should people be admitting they have a problem, they should take personal responsibility for that problem.

I guess you can say the reason I am very cold towards alcoholics is that I am extremely anti-alcohol. It has caused so many unnecessary problems.

In the end, alcohol is an addiction because alcohol companies use ingredients to make it addictive, so there is no bearing to the disease part. People get to low points in life or have too much fun and they become dependent on drinking because of its addiction and the way it makes them feel, it turns them into addicts who can't quit cause any addiction is hard to beat...but in the end to call it a disease is an insult to people who have real diseases that they have no control over.

Remembering can be painful, but sometimes not being able to can hurt too

My mom had a total of 4 children, I am the youngest. One child, the second died as a stillborn. The oldest child (who was at least 15 years older than me, yeah my mom is old), died when i was around 3 or 4. This just leaves my sister (who is 3 years older than me) and myself.

I have the fewest memories of my eldest sister. My mom said I didn't even really know what was going on. The only thing about the funeral I remember is my mom falling down. The only thing about my sister that I actually remember is that she owned a deck of cards that were green with a gold outline on them.

People say that remembering someone who died is painful. No doubt about it, it hurts because the more time you have with them, the more you miss them.

But what annoys me is when people assume that because you don't remember much about the person, you are not going through any pain.

The tv show Full House often showed this. The character Michelle was only a baby when their mom was killed, it was pretty hard for her as she got older for 2 reasons:

1. she had no mom like all the other girls in her school
2. she has no memories of her mom.

Yes, having no memories can be bad too. Its painful sometimes not being able to remember much about a loved one because of your age. It hurts that people assume you wouldn't be suffering because you don't have much memories thus not much of a connection with the person.

But we deal with a different kind of pain. We have to deal with the fact that we didn't get to know them. Its painful when others can talk about their memories of someone and you have nothing.

You see, a little child who was too young to understand death then, ends up grieving later on in life. They too have to come to terms.

So never assume that because someone is small or little that they can't possibly be in pain for not having much memories or time with the person to form much of an attachment.

If disaster struck, who do you save the rich or the poor?

So I am watching Titanic, and it made me think about the idea that somehow rich peoples lives were more of value than the poor. Republican politicians and libertarian politicians sickingly actually believe this to be true.

God help us.

Why do you think I consider conservatives to be modern day Pharisees? They are greedy.

But to answer the question, I would say its best to save the poor. One person said you just save as many souls as you can save, with no bias to race, gender, age, finances and etc.

Hurricane Katrina showed us that we still value lives based on race and finances as the blacks who were the poorest were not being rescued on time.

In my opinion though, I would rather save a poor person who was generous, than a greedy rich person.

If the world were to end and only a few would live, I would rather the survivors be those who have everyday working skills rather than rich people who don't know how to work like the poor do.

One conservative in an article said that poor peoples lives were expendable, doling out the usual misconceptions about what it means to be poor. He pretty much said there was no value to their lives.

Now if a conservative Christian actually believes this kind of garbage he spouted, you have officially proven that you do not believe in God nor actually live by God.

You see, if they had it their way, and the poor were all gone, that would make the rich the new poor class. You need a poor class to create a rich class. If the poor didn't exist, who would do your work for you?

Rich people are not America, they do not run America. They need and depend on poor people to keep them rich.

Women and Children first

Call me old fashioned, but I miss the days of men being honorable. I liked the fact on the Titanic, it was women and children first.

I get disgusted by a man who puts himself before a woman.

Now of course I disagree with Titanic's murdering of the poor by locking them and thus trapping them.

Lack of women and children first only shows how selfish society has become in the last few years.

If the Earth is going to end, it needs to end SOON.

Also women should not be allowed to fight in combat nor should she be drafted. War is for men, NOT women!

I could never respect nor date or love a man that believes in killing women and letting them be tortured simply because they women wanted the right to be able to hold jobs and get the same pay for it.

I am very traditional, and only a little bit of an independent woman. I do not like all that feminazi crap, and I can't stand sexist women haters who believe in punishing women by making them take on men's roles all because they wanted equal pay and the ability to have jobs.

Also, children need their moms much more than their fathers. When a divorce happens, I agree, the child should automatically go to the mom. Who gives a crap what the dad wants?

In the end women went through centuries of hell all because of men, now men need to learn how to deal with it. They have been boasting how strong they are for so long...PROVE IT!