Well it could have been a lib site. Like Rense, moveon.org, the New York Times, The Guardian, get it?
I'm so sorry to see people still clinging to the stereotypes of "Liberal" and "Conservative," which in actuality no longer exist.
What exists now, as polar opposites, are people who believe in "consent of the governed" and "advise and consent" versus the people (like the
NeoCons, the LeoStrauss crowd, etc) who believe in lies and deception as the proper way to take care of underclasses who are presumably too stupid to
know how to act in their own behalf or articulate their own issues.
Pro CONSENT (Libertarian, Constitutional Conservatives)
versus
Non-CONSENTing (Socialist, Communist, Republican Industrialist, Fascist)
What will it take to get these old outworn, irrelevant labels to just DIE?
But, anyway--What GAY or straight people consent to, only becomes a public issue or a matter for judgment, if it affects other populations adversely,
who had not consented to the effects they obtain.
If those X-tians are being affected adversely--if they were politically asute--they would be talking about EFFECTS--and not merely hating people.
[edit on 3-1-2005 by defrag99]