Thank you for your comment about adopted children, Rachel. Too bad you're the only one who will ever point that out. All the reporters and government representatives are too busy reclining on their fainting couches from the vapors.

Funny, I'm pretty sure no one knew nor cared about Rosen's sexuality until one person sent a tweet and Democrats desperately tried to change the conversation into something that makes them the victim. The victim card is starting to get a little stale.

No one cares that she's gay. The only people talking about this are liberals trying to make conservatives look like like they care.

Yes, because a child's live will be so much better being molested by their priest than being raised lovingly by their gay parents. Maybe because the priest recited Hail Mary while he molested those kids....kind of the same logic as the suicide bombers screaming Allah Akbar before an act? Who knows....

I just don't understand, why is it so hard for the people who believe in "God created man in his own image" and "God works in a mysterious way" and "[everything] is God's will" to think that maybe (just maybe) the gay and lesbian people are God's answer to the over population in this world? Maybe God creates them exactly for the purpose of taking care of those children who need loving family (as the people who can have kids will already have 5, 6, 10 or 15 of their own since they don't allow contraception and not everyone have $250M laying around in their bank account).

Why is it harder to believe that than it is to believe that the soul of those priest who molested kids over and over again can be redeemed by having him recite Hail Mary 1M times?

We don't really know who is bringing up topics in the media anymore. It just depends on how people react to it that's important. Women are conscerned about being treated fairly as far as everything goes. The facts speak for themselves. What group of people are initiating legislature that hurts women? As far as I know it is individual States Representatives that are doing this. The way that they are doing it also poses some questions without letting their citizens vote on these issues. I beleive women should receive equal pay as men they should pay the same for insurance no matter which gender seems to need more healthcare. We're talking about moms, daughters, grammas I think everybody has one of these in their family. If men are going to vote against womens issues unfairly then they should not have a say at all. All any human being asks for is fairness.

@samusx:

Funny, I'm pretty sure no one knew nor cared about Rosen's sexuality until one person sent a tweet....

First of all......"ONE person"? Catholic League is an organization. Without even looking at their site I believe League means "an association of individuals having a common goal.", but just in case, here is the first description of the organization:

The Catholic League is the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization.

Second of all: Obviously the organization and their followers care because if they don't, they wouldn't even mention it. The tweet would just be fine without the first word "Lesbian". Furthermore, this is not the first time they use someone's sexuality to demean the person. Their tweet on Rachel's book ended with "But she is a lesbian: Rachel Maddow." Again, the tweet would work just fine without it, but they use her sexuality to demeaned her.

....and Democrats desperately tried to change the conversation into something that makes them the victim.

You mean like the Romney campaign that now scream that Democrat is waging "War on Mom"? Yes....I see that.....

One person at the Catholic League. Are you going to blame the entire Obama administration for what Rosen said because she's an adviser? Well that's a whole new level of stupid.

It's obvious? Prove it then. It's your opinion. Silly liberals always confuse their opinions for fact.

samusx:

Speaking of fact: Rosen is not an adviser for the Obama Administration, so please check yours before waving around the FACT flag.

One person at the Catholic League tweeted using the tweeter account of THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE, so unless the organization then come out and say that person doesn't represent them, it IS a tweet from the organization.

Yes, in my opinion it is obvious that they care - again because if they don't, they wouldn't even mention the sexual orientation as those tweets would have the same meaning with or without the mention of sexual orientation of Hilary Rosen or Rachel. And no, I DO NOT confuse my opinion with fact...I just use fact to support my opinion.

Oh, so visiting the White House 32 times (that we know of) and being a Democratic Strategist doesn't make you an adviser...

Second, the Democratic party is an organization so by your logic Rosen's comments are shared by the entire party. Once again brilliant...

And third, your opinion doesn't matter, only facts do. NO ONE CARES THAT SHE'S GAY! Seriously, this is just the Democrats trying to justify Rosen's ignorant comments.

Oh, so visiting the White House 32 times (that we know of) and being a Democratic Strategist doesn't make you an adviser...

No...unless you are being paid by the administration as an Adviser, you are not the administration adviser.

Second, the Democratic party is an organization so by your logic Rosen's comments are shared by the entire party. Once again brilliant...

The Administration and the party already said they think Rosen's comment was inappropriate, so again...No...by my logic they do not share that comment.

And third, your opinion doesn't matter, only facts do. NO ONE CARES THAT SHE'S GAY! Seriously, this is just the Democrats trying to justify Rosen's ignorant comments.

So my opinion doesn't matter but yours do? I gave you facts and so far all I heard from you is quotes from Fox News, so really, who is being silly confusing opinion and fact here?

Now might be a good time to stop attacking each other, live and let live, agree to disagree. When a particular group of people hurts another group of people, that's when Americans should stand united and support the group that is being hurt whether you diasagree with them or not.

No Sam it does not make you an adviser. People of the press are often invited to the White House to get information about what's going on. Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren has visted the White House more than 23 times. By your logic this also makes her an adviser. Rosen is not a consultant for the Democratic Party and she hasn't been in some time. When they say she's a Democratic strategist on CNN what they mean is that she used to work as one. She works solely and only as a pundit talking about the Democratic Party. You really need to do some research instead of regurgitating talking points.

Secondly when a person who is unaffiliated w/ the White House talks about something not relating to the White House in a manner specifically not giving advice to the White House that's an incredibly far stretch from saying that the person who tweets for the Catholic League is disassociated. In the case of the latter that person is actually acting in an official capacity for the organization as a representative of the organization. Beyond this it was their tweet that brought up Rosen's sexuality. You saying "no one cares"- yeah I don't care and apparently you don't either. So why don't you take it up w/ the Catholic League since they are the ones who brought it up. You frame this as being Democrats playing the victim card. How the hell is it Democrats playing the victim card when it wasn't Democrats who brought the issue up in the first place? By your logic this would mean Ann Romney was also playing the victim card. Why aren't you complaining about her playing the victim card and how it's getting old?

This whole thing is an insult to the intelligence of - just about everyone. I guess we'll just have to see if there's a bump in favorability with women for Romney. With that, even the Christian Science Monitor sees this as stupid fake-outrage that - you know - our top leaders in the country were only too happy to fall over themselves apologizing for.

And that's what we're going to vote for - an apologist over stupid fakery? Whatever happened to, "We don't have time for this silliness."

I'm hoping women from every background can see through this and the way the GOP are again using women as some kind of political tool. We are not questioning the choice of men who stay at home to raise children, this is also occuring in our Country. I just don't understand their choice of choosing the word choice I had no choice, I had to work. I would have loved to have stayed home and raised my children. I wanted to bake and teach my children more about respecting each other. I wish I could have been more involved in their lives. I had to work and I hope my children understand that.

Yes, they did rent, in their early married years, when Mitt was a Harvard student. In 1994, when Mitt was running against Kennedy for the US Senate, Ann Romney confessed that those years were so tough, they had to sell stock to pay their living expenses.

And yes, she was seriously using this as an example of how they could empathize with the average person, because they'd been through those tough years, of paying bills by selling, at $96 a share, birthday stock that had been bought at $6 a share.

He's already split....he's a freakin' polygamist for crying out loud...!!!!

What's the problem with polygamy? If two people of the same sex can get married then why not a man and two women?

Yes, he has. In 1994, he ran in part on the fact of being more liberal on gay rights than Kennedy was.

Sure why not, as long as the women are not doing this because they were enticed into it or are being mistreated in anyway or feel they have to because they feel the only way they're going to survive is with a man. Otherwise go for it.@samsusx

Yes because two people of the same sex getting married is completely equivalent to polygamy. Apparently Sam you were lying when you said you don't care about same sex marriage. Le sighs.

Seriously people? You do realize that your words are on a public forum and people can remember what you posted just a thread ago, yes?

Yes, it is equivalent. And no, I don't have a problem with either.

The definition of marriage nationwide in Canada, since 2005, has been "the union of any two people to the exclusion of all others" (and right wing Canadian Conservatives, middle of the road or even left socially in American terms, support that), so no, a man and two women is not the same as that.

Canadian Conservatives support:

• Single payer health care (1966).
• Same-sex marriage (2005)
• A woman's right to choose (1970)
• LGBT in the Canadian military (1992)

and have a platform of support and commitment to never change those things.

One Conservative MP is going to introduce an anti-abortion bill (as a private member, because his party refuses to introduce it as a party) and, out of 166 Conservative MPs, there will only be a small handful (maybe 5) voting for it, and the remaining 142 MPs of other parties won't be voting for it either, so, it is thought that the anti-abortion bill will be voted down by approximately 303 to 5, mostly voted down by Conservatives.

Ok, well that's not the definition of marriage in the USA. If the definition is going to be modified by changing one of it's variables, then there should be no problem changing a different variable. Perhaps "the union of any individual(s)."

To your odd inclusion of abortion into this topic, I guess that unlike in Canada, conservatives in the USA still have a lingering respect for life.

Canadians believe that medical decisions are solely made between patients and doctors, even though the government pays the bill - at arms length, with no say in who gets treatment and what treatment they get (including with abortion).

This is very unlike the United States, where an insurance company bureaucrat, a Republican legislator, and in some places their boss, stand between Americans and American doctors, and those people between Americans and their doctors can overrule the doctor's professional opinion - which is impossible in Canada, where what doctors and patients decide is paramount and not subject to any decision by government, and the vast majority of Canadian Conservatives realize this fact.

Why were they denied visas?

Third world countries often have inaccurate and improperly registered birth certificates. In Uganda, there is only one place in the capital where a birth can be validly registered and it is out of reach of many Ugandans. Even the president of Uganda doesn't know his real birth date, because his own birth was not properly registered at that one office.

Release the president's college transcripts. I'm pretty sure, based on his lack of constitutional knowledge, he was a pretty poor student. I just want the proof.

Exactly what part of the constitution are you referring to?

Checks and balances. Apparently the lesson I got about it in elementary isn't taught at Harvard Law. There's nothing out of the ordinary when it comes to the supreme court striking down a law.

This oughta be high on the list of investigations. Also all these new laws that are coming out I somehow think may have something to do with building more prisons or receiving more money from the government for prisoners? Or Private prisons. I know in the Mental Health field they receive money from Insurance Companies depending on the amount of care given to the patient which they now refer to as clients.