bullets13

[Hidden Content]

I'm saying that people who are not straight are unable to be added to their partner's healthcare for that reason.

I'm not a fan of Obamacare. It's also a different issue than what you and I are talking about on this thread.

Yup. I make a distinction between someone who wants to marry an animal and someone who is unable to get health insurance because of their sexual orientation.

"It was obviously a mistake," said SPSCC's Dean of College Relations, Kellie Purce Braseth. Braseth said the group that put out the email last week apologized the next day and canceled the event. She said the college believes the best way to celebrate and discuss diversity is to include everyone. "If you want to come you should be able to come, that just makes a richer conversation," said Braseth.

It would appear that this was the work of a single person, or a small group of people, and that the college reacted properly when they became aware of the situation by canceling the event. She SHOULD probably have been fired, but that's easier said than done. i know nothing about the college itself.

This is a tough one for me. If he did in fact dam up a stream, does it have any negative effects on his neighbors? Could he possibly flood the neighbors land upstream? I'm generally in favor of a man being able to do what he likes on his own property, but I'd definitely be curious to see how this affects people living around him, IF he did in fact dam up an existing stream.

Obviously she's nuts. But I could care less. I'm more concerned about people getting the rights they deserve. Why didn't you post the link to the guy who wants to marry his goat?

Very damning.

[Hidden Content] This list actually shows more transgressions on the right than the left over the last two decades, although various arguments could be made about the severity of different scandals, what was or was not included in the list, etc. etc. realistically, the list just shows there are plenty of bad people on both sides of the aisle.

The results wouldn't affect me one way or another. I think you're right in your assertion that some things that a certain group would consider "scandalous" would have little or no beating in the eyes of a different group.

I don't mind at all. I attended East Texas Baptist University.

I honestly don't think so. I remember one particular professor that was very liberal, and maybe one or two more that pushed their beliefs, and about the same with the conservatives. For the most part they just taught the class (syllabus, read the book, turn in your homework, take the test, here's your grade)

I'm sure we could go on forever. What would be the point? I was merely suggesting that while the right still wildly criticizes Clinton, Newt has somehow re-emerged as a respected politician even after cheating on and leaving TWO wives after they were diagnosed with cancer and MS, respectively.

I agree. But I think the different dirtbag scales has much to do with the different ideologies. And when a large pillar of the right's message involves family values and Christianity, it really is important for them to live that lifestyle, especially when they're pushing legislation to enforce those beliefs. It's MY opinion that republicans will always be held to a higher standard in these types of matters because of what they say they stand for. I think in a way people in our country have come to expect political scandals, but they'll still backlash against someone they view as a hypocrite.

Beat me to it. Also not defending either, but gas went from about $1.50 to almost $4.00 under bush, then dropped back down long enough for people to say "When Bush left office, gas was under two bucks!" before going back up to where it was before.

IMO it's going to take a moderately conservative republican to win it, and the far right's willingness to vote for him. To have a chance against Hillary, which will be the 2nd democratic candidate in a row that will be taking a large chunk of a demographic based on something that has nothing to do with politics, the republicans have to find a way to do two things: avoid disenfranchising ultra conservatives, causing them to avoid the polls, and find a way to swing the moderate vote away from the left. I think their best chance is to choose a moderate who might swing the fence sitters to the right, while somehow convincing the far right that electing a moderate republican is better than having an ultra-conservative get defeated by Hillary.

Perhaps the conservative right, which takes so much pride in legislating morality, needs to make sure that the candidates it puts forth indeed have a strong moral compass. It's really funny to me that the same people who are quick to ridicule Bill Clinton for his improprieties then turn around and blame the "liberal media" for exposing the improprieties of their own candidates.

Considering how accountable many conservatives still hold Clinton, surely Newt was unforgiven and unelectable from his first scandal anyway.

I notice you didn't have a response to Gingrich's well-documented misdeeds. Does this mean you don't have a problem with what he's done?

. I believe I said two or three times that I wasn't okay with what Clinton did. I guess affairs only count if its a democrat. And I'd say that Palin did to that town what Obama has done to the country. I don't see how you can look at her record there and still think she would be a good choice, but that's your call.

I did not say it was okay. Nor did I feel it was okay when newt Gingrich divorced his first wife while she was being treated for cancer, and then cheated on and divorced his second wife after she was diagnosed with mutliple sclerosis. I think both sides turn a blind eye to their side's scandals, while jumping on the other side's. I mean Newt is still a respected politician who had a lot of support for president last go-round, despite his history of sexual impropriety, the first known instance coming WHILE he was leading the charge against Clinton for his relationship against Monica.

Please state why.

Do you have any problems with all of his sexual deviancy, including pushing women up against walls and groping them against their wills, as well as his multiple affairs and pattern of sexual harassment? Or should that be ignored because he's a conservative?

Steve, it was a joke that fit the conversation because Russia was involved. As for the town she ran up the debt as mayor, I'm with you but I'm not with you. I believe I'm on record on this site on many occasions as saying that I'm not happy with how our country is being run financially. But that doesn't change the fact that she had several scandals in her town and ran up lots of debt there. So, no, I'm not happy with Obama's economy, and no, I still wouldn't trust Palin to do any better.