Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 09:17 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
How many here applauded Rosie O'Donnels' wife having a child?
Will their child be in dire straits because they're a gay couple?


What does Mark Knofler have to do with this?
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 09:18 am
Roxxxanne wrote:

Obviously, Ms Crouse feels that children of Lesbian couples are somehow stigmatized.
You are not aware of the Bush's administrations opposition to LGBT rights such as Marriage Equality?



If that is the case, it is a very poorly written article. It just leaves the reader to make assumptions about what they think she implies with her vague comment. No, it isn't obvious.

And yes, I'm aware of the marriage rights legislative effort.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 09:22 am
Butrflynet wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:

From the article I posted:

"Not only is she doing a disservice to her child, she's voiding all the effort her father put into the Bush administration," said Janice Shaw Crouse, senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank run by Concerned Women for America.
[/b]

Obviously, Ms Crouse feels that children of Lesbian couples are somehow stigmatized.
Quote:
You are not aware of the Bush's administrations opposition to LGBT rights such as Marriage Equality?



If that is the case, it is a very poorly written article. It just leaves the reader to make assumptions about what they think she implies with her vague comment. No, it isn't obvious.

And yes, I'm aware of the marriage rights legislative effort.


It was obvoius to me (but you will notice I edited that post) but I am politically astute and an LGBT Rights Activist.

(I hope you are not going to ask what LGBT stands for)
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 09:22 am
According to MSN/Money Massachusetts ranks 37th highest (out of 50) for the amount of State and Local taxes paid.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 09:24 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
I don't believe evidence is required to offer an opinion.

No, it's just required to offer an informed opinion.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 09:40 am
Quote:
It was obvoius to me (but you will notice I edited that post) but I am politically astute and an LGBT Rights Activist.

(I hope you are not going to ask what LGBT stands for)




Are you saying that you edited the article before posting it but didn't state that it was an excerpt and not the entire article?

No wonder it has so many non-sequitirs.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 09:45 am
joefromchicago wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
I don't believe evidence is required to offer an opinion.

No, it's just required to offer an informed opinion.


If evidence is required to post an opinion, then I think we would eliminate about 90% of all postings here. Gosh, what a boring thought.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 09:47 am
Are you just being dense, CR?

Joe did stipulate an informed opinion.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 09:48 am
Butrflynet wrote:
Quote:
It was obvoius to me (but you will notice I edited that post) but I am politically astute and an LGBT Rights Activist.

(I hope you are not going to ask what LGBT stands for)




Are you saying that you edited the article before posting it but didn't state that it was an excerpt and not the entire article?

No wonder it has so many non-sequitirs.


No, I edited my post which is also obvious if you go back and look. Don't blame me or the writer for what the homophobic pieces of crap have to say about Lesbian child-rearing.

Are you trying to start a flame war?
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 09:50 am
Ok, so we can only eliminate about 80% then.

(Me, dense? A bit silly at times and often stubborn, but dense? Naw. :wink: )
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 10:08 am
No, Roxxxanne, I was trying to get some information about what was being implied by a vague quote and vague response referring to a post that was edited.

I'll drop it, it isn't worth the frustration.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 10:22 am
The question that still hasn't been answered is whether this baby is going to be able to have two parents or not?
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 10:25 am
At this point, it seems as if there are 20 million or so people trying to "parent" the family.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 10:33 am
ebrown_p wrote:
The question that still hasn't been answered is whether this baby is going to be able to have two parents or not?


If you feel the need to be so nosy, perhaps you should write her a letter and ask her?

I am sure that if she was an illegal alien, you would have nothing but compassion for her.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 10:55 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
blatham wrote:
OK guys. I think it's time to stop piling on here. MSM has ceased posting in the manner we all protested. Not everyone manages to accomplish such a change and that really ought not to go unnoticed or unrewarded.

Thanks, but I doubt your words will mean much to some that would find fault with anything that any conservative says, which is fine, it's their right, it's my right to keep on standing for what I believe.


You deserved the pat on the back.

A fundamental reason you keep getting in trouble here is for sentences such as I noted in red. That's an exaggeration and it doesn't apply to anyone on the site. It's inaccurate and uncareful. You'll get jumped on for that, as you should. At our best here, we are a demanding group (though most, including me, could be more civil more often) and the reason for that is to try and get our facts and our thinking right.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 11:00 am
blatham wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
blatham wrote:
OK guys. I think it's time to stop piling on here. MSM has ceased posting in the manner we all protested. Not everyone manages to accomplish such a change and that really ought not to go unnoticed or unrewarded.

Thanks, but I doubt your words will mean much to some that would find fault with anything that any conservative says, which is fine, it's their right, it's my right to keep on standing for what I believe.


You deserved the pat on the back.

A fundamental reason you keep getting in trouble here is for sentences such as I noted in red. That's an exaggeration and it doesn't apply to anyone on the site. It's inaccurate and uncareful. You'll get jumped on for that, as you should. At our best here, we are a demanding group (though most, including me, could be more civil more often) and the reason for that is to try and get our facts and our thinking right.


I have noted in red the BS statement in your reply Blatham. It's a blatant lie and you know it very well. There are very few on A2K that fit the overly generous position you are trying to foster.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 11:12 am
It isn't a false claim, McG. There are no conservatives here who match that description in the reverse, either.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 11:55 am
It's nice to know I can go to the gym a couple hours and come back to a status quo..... in an uncertain world it means a lot. Laughing
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 01:26 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
I don't believe evidence is required to offer an opinion.

There is no requirement that my opinion need agree with your opinion, which is what you are doing, in my opinion.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Dec, 2006 01:29 pm
blatham wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
blatham wrote:
OK guys. I think it's time to stop piling on here. MSM has ceased posting in the manner we all protested. Not everyone manages to accomplish such a change and that really ought not to go unnoticed or unrewarded.

Thanks, but I doubt your words will mean much to some that would find fault with anything that any conservative says, which is fine, it's their right, it's my right to keep on standing for what I believe.


You deserved the pat on the back.

A fundamental reason you keep getting in trouble here is for sentences such as I noted in red. That's an exaggeration and it doesn't apply to anyone on the site. It's inaccurate and uncareful. You'll get jumped on for that, as you should. At our best here, we are a demanding group (though most, including me, could be more civil more often) and the reason for that is to try and get our facts and our thinking right.

Again, thanks, We disagree on the exaggeration comment, but as I said, we are all entiteled to our opinions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Mary With Child
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/17/2021 at 09:57:56