Gov. Sanford Scandal

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
the only point in continuing this discussion is to discredit the "arguments" being put forth in order to continually discredit and debunk them to the masses (though the FYM "masses" hardly need such discrediting).

so i'll continue to do so. :shrug:
 
really what you're saying is that you don't care. that you have no compassion. that you are allowed to talk about your wife and child but a homosexual should shut up about their partner our perhaps their children.
I "don't care" for those who want to control the pulpit. I "don't care" for those who disrupt funerals for American soldiers and homosexuals. I "don't care" for those who call it "compassion" when you give up your principles. I "don't care" for those who distort the English language to shove an agenda down society's throat.

If it doesn't get in the way of my life and the way I raise my children, then fine. But it does. It indoctrinates them with a false sense of reality.
 
I "don't care" for those who want to control the pulpit. I "don't care" for those who disrupt funerals for American soldiers and homosexuals. I "don't care" for those who call it "compassion" when you give up your principles. I "don't care" for those who distort the English language to shove an agenda down society's throat.

If it doesn't get in the way of my life and the way I raise my children, then fine. But it does. It indoctrinates them with a false sense of reality.



what does this mean? what's this "agenda"? what language is being "distorted"?

how would my potential marriage to a man somehow harm your children?
 
what does this mean? what's this "agenda"? what language is being "distorted"?
You can't possibly mean this. "Sexual identity" - what gender you want to be, rather than what you are... "Homophobes" - anyone who doesn't support gay marriage (which would mean nine out of ten Chinese voters in California)... You know the verbiage as well as I do.

how would my potential marriage to a man somehow harm your children?
Already answered that.
 
You can't possibly mean this. "Sexual identity" - what gender you want to be, rather than what you are... "Homophobes" - anyone who doesn't support gay marriage (which would mean nine out of ten Chinese voters in California)... You know the verbiage as well as I do.

Are you going to start making sense soon?
 
Then how is it explained?
Parents kill their offspring in the animal kingdom as well. Certain humans have done it, too.

It doesn't mean it's right.

It only demonstrates the absurdity of your argument.
 
Parents kill their offspring in the animal kingdom as well. Certain humans have done it, too.

It doesn't mean it's right.

:lmao: Oh wow, this has got to one of the craziest answers I've seen in years!!!

I don't even know where to start. First of all I'm not aware of any animals that kill their offspring, but maybe there are and there's some evolutionary reasoning for it. Secondly that point was not to discuss if it was right or wrong, but to show that it was naturally occuring. Which is what we were discussing.

Oh wow...
 
:lmao: Oh wow, this has got to one of the craziest answers I've seen in years!!!

I don't even know where to start. First of all I'm not aware of any animals that kill their offspring, but maybe there are and there's some evolutionary reasoning for it. Secondly that point was not to discuss if it was right or wrong, but to show that it was naturally occuring. Which is what we were discussing.

Oh wow...
It's crazy because it demonstrates your absurdity.

If you don't know of any animals that kill their offspring, you obviously know nothing about the animal kingdom other than what they do with their genitals.
 
You can't possibly mean this. "Sexual identity" - what gender you want to be, rather than what you are... "Homophobes" - anyone who doesn't support gay marriage (which would mean nine out of ten Chinese voters in California)... You know the verbiage as well as I do.




ok, i think my participation on this particular topic in this particular thread is at an end.

though am i correct in sensing that we want to blame the gays for the Sanford scandal?

Mac, you can PM me if you want. i'll do my best to help you.
 
It's crazy because it demonstrates your absurdity.

If you don't know of any animals that kill their offspring, you obviously know nothing about the animal kingdom other than what they do with their genitals.

:rolleyes:

These last few pages should be published and sent out to every conservative blogger and newsource, so they can wince in their own side's ignorance and absurdity. Maybe by reading the last few pages they'll get a little insight in to how weak and uninformed the conservative argument against gay marriage really is.
 
:rolleyes:

These last few pages should be published and sent out to every conservative blogger and newsource, so they can wince in their own side's ignorance and absurdity. Maybe by reading the last few pages they'll get a little insight in to how weak and uninformed the conservative argument against gay marriage really is.
I can care less about the fixation the Fabian Left has with conservative media personalities.

The fact is:

Anyone who has studied animals will conclude that homosexuality, filicide, and cannibalism are exceptions to normal animal behavior. They are not animal instincts.
 
Wow, some of the things said here are so completely repugnant that I had to stop reading.

Sad.
 
The fact is:

Anyone who has studied animals will conclude that homosexuality, filicide, and cannibalism are exceptions to normal animal behavior. They are not animal instincts.


Wow, you really go way out of the way to miss a point don't you?

But equating homosexuality to filicide and cannibalism? That's a new low, even for you.

It's useless to have a discussion with someone who is being purposely obtuse and filled with so much animus.

Bye.
 
If it doesn't get in the way of my life and the way I raise my children, then fine. But it does. It indoctrinates them with a false sense of reality.
This is irrelevant. People believe in all kinds of things such that from their POV, their children's inevitable exposure to contrary views from teachers at school, from religious proselytizers in the public square and the media, from the government itself, and beyond "indoctrinates their children with a false sense of reality." No one is stopping you from teaching your children that gay people are morally and psychologically disturbed perverts whose appeals to equality and justice are empty conceits regrettably accommodated by our legal system's emphasis on individual rights and freedoms. And if you ultimately fail to convince your children of that, that's your problem, not the state's. Did you have to submit a mental health history and clerical evaluations of your moral fiber in order to get legally married? No.

And none of this has anything to do with Governor Sanford.
 
Last edited:
And none of this has anything to do with Governor Sanford.

No it doesn't. But I just wanted to say that I believe that the ultimate indoctrination of "false realities" comes from parents. And kids will find that out when they get older and are free to think for themselves. You can't shield them from experiencing and learning from the genuine love of two people, gay or straight. And you can't control their minds, unless a tin foil hat really works somehow.

I won't even comment on the rest, other than to say that I'm sorry it's hurtful to some people here.
 
Yes it unquestionably is. Macfistowannabe has the luxury of it just being doctrine to him.
 
it's kind of sad that when children grow up and have thoughts that might be different from their parents, then some parents view this as a failure on their part and blame "society" or whatever.

seems positively cultish.
 
vertical1.jpg


which one is more likely to hump your leg?

Bauer to Sanford: Time to hit the road, Mr. Governor.
By Matthew Shaer | 08.26.09



He could have been a contender in 2012.

Now it’s looking like South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford might not even make it to the end of his term. On Wednesday morning, Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer called on Sanford to step down, urging Sanford to consider the well-being of the Palmetto State. Bauer, according to the Associated Press, reiterated his offer to back out of the 2010 gubernatorial race if Sanford leaves office now.

Bauer said rumors and discussion of Sanford’s impeachment could “dominate next year’s legislative session instead of issues like the economy and job creation.”

Bauer is the latest in a long line of Republican lawmakers urging Sanford’s exit. In late June, for instance, 10 state senators said they wanted the governor gone. And on July 6, the South Carolina Republican Party voted to censure Sanford. (The party never explicitly suggested he resign.)

Still, Sanford clung to his post, claiming that he despite his moral failings, he was still fit for political office. “If the good Lord’s going to make changes in your life, you’ve gotta stick around for the process,” Sanford said.

Sanford’s term as governor expires in January of 2011. “People need to take their personal, political considerations off the table and think about what’s best for the state,” a Bauer spokesman said in a statement yesterday.

It’s been a turbulent few months for Sanford, to put it lightly. In June, Sanford vanished without a trace from the public radar; aides assured the press he was only hiking the Appalachian Trail.

Wrong.

Instead, Sanford, a well-liked governor with a good shot at the GOP presidential nomination in ‘12, was dallying in South America with a longtime Argentinian lover. Worse yet: on at least a few occasions, Sanford had funded his affair with taxpayer dough. This from a guy who earned major plaudits from conservatives for his initial rejection of federal stimulus funds. (Forget the fact that he later accepted the bulk of that money anyway.)


Bauer to Sanford: Time to hit the road, Mr. Governor. | csmonitor.com
 
Back
Top Bottom