Gravitymaster

Yeah, what a scumbag. He only paid $6.2 million in taxes. How much did you pay?

I guess it takes a certain kind of mind to notice that.

You keep missing this part. But at least I thank you for provng my point when I challenged this statement: I'd say they most certainly do want to stop this mother. Thanks for playing.

I'd say the odds are greater of her being exposed to a negative situation in a school with 1000's of teenagers than being abused by her mothers boyfriend. Clearly you have resorted to your normal tactic of being argumentitive for the sake of arguing and are grasping at straws. Have a good night.

By all accounts the daughter was happy, well adjusted and recieving a good education. The only contention between the parents was religion. The mother was the custodial parent. Although they had both agreed to have an equal say in her upbringing, they could not come to an agreement on this issue and asked the courts to make a ruling. Why would a judge rule to change a very good situation like that except for a religious bias on his behalf? What happens if the girl goes to school and ends up using drugs, or gets pregnant? Why would a judge take that chance when there wasn't a compelling reason, other than religion, to change it?

Clearly this had everything with the courts desire to deny the mother the ability to provide her daughter a faith based education.

I would have ruled in favor of the wishes of the custodial parent. That's why there is a custodial parent. The only difference here compared to other custodial issues is the religion. The father never asserted incompetence or any of the other common reasons.

Agreed - it's just CRAZY that you won't recognize the parallels between left/right issues as a rebuttal to his post. Secular advocates don't want to stop you from teaching your kids learning about religion. You're right, sometimes you can't fit enough crazy faces on one page. YOU can teach YOUR kids all about religion as much as you want. However, the government shouldn't be in the business of teaching MY kids about religion. That's the point. Perhaps, but that's not what he said. That is exactly what I said (with a fairly major syntax error, granted, but one that in no way obscures the meaning). See how the bits in bold match up with the bits quade put in caps? Those are the bits that are exactly the same, and mean exactly the same thing. Your claim just simply isn't true. http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/27/too-religious-to-home-school/ A) So it was what I said? B) Unless you can find an 'example' that isn't a dispute between two parents, my claim stands. Honestly, did you think I wouldn't look at your link at all, or just that I wouldn't notice it has fuck all to do with what we're talking about? It's a clear case of the courts trying to prevent a parent from teaching their kid about religion at home. Stop trying to add conditions to support your position.

Agreed - it's just CRAZY that you won't recognize the parallels between left/right issues as a rebuttal to his post. Secular advocates don't want to stop you from teaching your kids learning about religion. You're right, sometimes you can't fit enough crazy faces on one page. YOU can teach YOUR kids all about religion as much as you want. However, the government shouldn't be in the business of teaching MY kids about religion. That's the point. Perhaps, but that's not what he said. That is exactly what I said (with a fairly major syntax error, granted, but one that in no way obscures the meaning). See how the bits in bold match up with the bits quade put in caps? Those are the bits that are exactly the same, and mean exactly the same thing. Your claim just simply isn't true. http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/27/too-religious-to-home-school/ http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=659638

Agreed - it's just CRAZY that you won't recognize the parallels between left/right issues as a rebuttal to his post. Secular advocates don't want to stop you from teaching your kids learning about religion. You're right, sometimes you can't fit enough crazy faces on one page. YOU can teach YOUR kids all about religion as much as you want. However, the government shouldn't be in the business of teaching MY kids about religion. That's the point. Perhaps, but that's not what he said.

Agreed - it's just CRAZY that you won't recognize the parallels between left/right issues as a rebuttal to his post. Secular advocates don't want to stop you from teaching your kids learning about religion. You're right, sometimes you can't fit enough crazy faces on one page.

He's criticized because people disagree with his policies, and I disagree that it's with the same vitriol as Gingrich evokes. Uh, huh...right http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4250281;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread When a candidate states publicly that US law should conform to the laws of a specific religion (Christianity, and more particularly Catholicism), then they truly do want to change the fundamental nature of America in ways that directly violate the constitution and infringe on the freedom of everyone who doesn't already follow that specific religion. If someone runs on a platform of establishing America as a religious theocracy you can be sure I (and many others) will object strenuously. Santorum has, of course, the right to choose for himself how he will live his life, and as far as I know he does abide by his principles. Other than stating his objection to abortion, please show where he's said that he wants to do this Gingrich's behavior (as opposed to his words) shows over and over that he will say or do whatever seems to him at the moment to be most expeditious at gaining power or pussy for himself. He will sell out anyone if he can benefit. I don't know what policies he will promote should he be elected, as his word is of no value and the only predictor of his decisions is "what's in it for him". I don't disagree. I hear over and over from certain posters here in SC (including yourself, rather prominently) that Obama's policies are anti-America and anti-capitalism. That disagreement with policy very obviously extends to a very personal animosity against Obama. Big leap in logic there. I have no doubt that if he were to run into a burning building and carry 10 kids to safety on his back, you and certain others would be here in SC accusing him of setting the fire, corruptly allowing the building contractor to evade fire codes, or of planting the kids where they were really not in danger so he just appear to be the hero. Maybe it's your own inability to separate disagreement with policy from personal hatred that leads you to see vitriol where there is only disagreement. You would be very wrong and I will challenge you to show where I've ever made a serious personal attack on Obama. Don

That's what Santorum does yet he's criticized for it with the same vitiol as Gingrich is.

Irony meter pegged on that one. Nice job. At least you can recognize it.

Actually I don't think it matters to you one way or another. What I think you are looking for is something, anything, to criticize.

INCORRECT. Newt's personal life is not the issue. The issue is that his personal life is at variance with the platform he runs on, which makes him the hypocrite. OMG, an imperfect politician. Oh, the humanity! And then they criticize Santorum for adhering to his family values platform.

You will hear more about this when the time is right.

You dare to doubt Chuck Norris?

And now with Newt's win in South Carolina, the entire Republican nominating process is getting even more hilarious. JerryBaumchen A former Republican for 40+ yrs - I didn't leave them, they left me. Nothing will ever be as humorous as watching the lefties get all stirred up about a community organizer preaching Hope and Change. They fell for it hoo, line and sinker. Then he went on to do exactly what community organizer do best, suck money from the government and spend, spend,spend. It has been like watching a child on a shopping spree in a candy store.

Sounds good to me, lets start cutting the least important items and keep going until the budget is balanced. Problem is everyone has their own ideas about what's important and what isn't.

I didn't know that. Physician: heal thyself! By the way , you wouldn't have been "Peaceful Jeffrey" or "DesertAttorney" in a previous internet life, by any chance? Don Or "Treetop"? Or "Timmyfritz"? Or Captain Slog

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/my-endorsement-for-president/ Continue to argue at your own risk.

Well, personally I find hypocrisy to be an unattractive character trait regardless of the political slant of the hypocrite. Mr. Gingrich's history is well known to everybody. Can you remind me who Clinton set up an inquisition on, then tried to impeach, for activities that he was himself engaged in at the same time? I've quite forgotten any such incidents. I don't think I have ever said I approved of Clinton's behavior re "zippergate". I don't think they rose to the level of impeachment, but of course others (perhaps Lawrocket) may disagree. If Newt has (had?) a propensity to deceive those he claimed to be closest to so he could dip his wick in any besotted campaign worker who'd flop on her back and spread her legs for him, that just makes him a cad. It's the fact that he would seek to advance his own career by attacking others over behavior he is himself engaged in (and so must find excusable) that exposes his real moral compass (unadulterated self-interest) and renders him an exceeding poor choice for president. The same compass is evident when he takes money to "consult" (i.e. lobby) for Fannie and Freddie, then turns around and shits on them when that becomes more expedient. Surely a party that claims to represent a majority in a country with a voting-eligible population of over 217 million can find a decent selection of candidates who are both intelligent and not scumbags? Don You do realize Clinton's Impeachment was due to perjury and not about an affair. I know the left wing spin machine tried very hard to convince it's loyal minions it was about sex, but I thougt by now most had come to their senses and understood the reality of what it was about.

Personally I think whatever someone does in his bed room is no one's business as long as it doesn't reflect on his or her job. I believe that's what I said.

Check out this scsry looking gun.