open-thread-icon.jpg


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. “Democratic women have not been immune from criticism (Hillary Clinton? Nancy Pelosi?) but also these political women (Democratic and Republican) are in the thick of things and it is also not fair to pull the delicate woman card to exempt a particular woman from political criticism. They are big girls.”

    donatella,
    I tend to agree.
    By all means, let us vet every woman candidate as strongly as we do the male candidates.
    But let’s start from the point where we can agree that neither party holds the patent on brains and innovative ideas.
    That much has clearly been established over the centuries.
    When we start all the Republican women campaigns with the left stating, “…well she’s a dumb-ass Republican but let’s see what she knows” you are heading for a problem.

    …and I’m not saying you do that at all. But certainly, the far left starts practically every conversation with that assumption.

  2. “Yes, so as I stated, you think any one who doesn’t agree with your social, economic and political values is a nut.”

    Again legion, you are so willing to make judgements on what I think. Yet you are so incapable of looking at what you consistently post everyday. Here’s my take- extremists are nuts. People who want to impose their religo-social agendas on the rest of us are extremists. They sure as hell are Constitutionalists. People who run their politics from bumper stickers are fools. People who are not willing to compromise but would rather play partisan politics no matter who gets hurt, are assholes. And that is in both parties.

    And just remember dave, while you’re sneering at Democratic women. It ain’t the Democrats who want to treat gays like second class citizens. Bachmann- go check out her views on homosexuality and then get back to me with how attractive she looks in make up.

  3. “When you say member number… what does it mean to be a “member”? I have no idea what that means in the context of a church.”

    Every church is probably slightly different, but for me it has meant:
    – Attending for a few months
    – Potentially going to an informational class or two
    – Meeting with the minister and signing a membership book
    – Standing in front of the congregation for a 3 minute ceremony where you publicly become a member
    – Agreeing to make an annual financial pledge to the church

  4. You will get a quarterly letter saying what you gave and it will say let us know if it doesn’t match your own records. I toss mine immediately.

    Being a member varies but Episcopal, wealthy churches are pretty laid back – attend a meeting, listen to what types of Sunday school programs they have, talk about what kind of religious experiences you’ve ever had if you want, hear the history of that church or denomination explained; if you’d like to sign the paper, fine. A lot of spouses or partners join without the other spouse or partner.

  5. “If we took away the minimum wage – if conceivably it was gone – we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level”

    Michele Bachmann

    “Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”

    Michele Bachmann

  6. posted by bxgrl
    “about because they are for the most part anti-choice, anti-gay and anti- womens rights except when it is to their advantage. Feminists are women who stood up for themselves and women in general”

    so it would be fair to say the reverse, that Democratic women
    are:

    -Anti-baby in-the-womb life
    -Anti-Muslim, Anti-Catholic, Anti-Baptist, etc.
    -Anti-Religion
    -Anti-Men’s rights

    Do you begin to see how ridiculous that sounds?

    When you base politics on the most extreme views of the people involved then you begin to move towards a true antipathy.

1 17 18 19 20 21 47