Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I don't "agree with" the second blog, but please note that it actually cites all needed references in regards to the original act, the supreme court ruling, a new act to correct the wording of the original, etc....

Notice that it actually AGREES with your blog's point of view?

The difference is that it does a SLIGHTLY better job of being a source of informational news, rather than blatantly emotionalized propoganda utilizing deliberately charged language and slurs, don't you think?.