Posted on 05/28/2010 6:23:43 AM PDT by xzins
Welcome back, BlackElk. Is all now well with you?
anyone notice huddy’s “upgrades” ?
I was saddened by Huddy’s response about having a child out of wedlock. She indicated she might just do that. Said a little bit about finding the right man, but backed off it.
Her personal life has probably been a disappointment in terms of finding the right mate to have kids with, but to abandon the idea altogether that the biological parents are best suited to raise their own children?
Sounded to me like she spoke from a serious, serious depression.
everyone is soft of homosexuality today
i used the word “f*g” here yesterday and the post was yanked.
i usually say caker
America’s been sold the line that homosexuality’s about personal lifestyle choice.
It isn’t: it’s about suicide....moderately slow suicide.
According to these polls, cheating on your wife is less moral than killing babies. And who were the % that said adultery is ok?
Abortion they were the typical wishy washy feminists not wanting responsibility for their actions, so they were okay with "choice".
The double standard of "modern" women is galling.
If the issue affects women they don't want any criticism of behavior or punishment. If the issue affects men then it is okay and we should be more "nuanced" in our views. For example, they are opposed to adultery, which just happens to affect women and children in a negative way more so then men. However, they are for capital punishment which is applied to men in much greater percentage and they aren't opposed to homosexuality which undermines the distinctive masculine role in society.
Man oh man this is true! First it was Rush on the radio and realizing that a huge portion of the productive population held similar opinions. Now it's FR. Whatever the event you can find a thread and see some very well thought out analysis that you won't find anywhere else.
Yep. I know that many of us have a circle of those to whom we post, but the open forum invites anyone to jump in and offer an opinion.
It’s a great discussion forum.
And there is no other discussion software that comes remotely close to that of Free Republic.
I don’t watch O’Reilly regularly any more but have seen a number of these segments (usually with the Hoover gal). Gretchen is usually fairly solid, but last night was appalling.
I agree. It promotes seeing all the posts and makes it easier for anyone to jump in.
So we end up with the greatest living human being on the planet, the most noble, selfless, hard-working, long-suffering, generous and gorgeous person to grace our humdrum lives -- Sandra Bullock.
Again, ignore the fact she married a Nazi, helped to raise what she called in PEOPLE magazine her "little Aryan babies," and threw a gay wedding for her two homosexual buddies years before "Sex and the City 2" made it fashionable.
There's the role model for young women.
Who's the role model for young men?
Janet Reno.
Not only is it suicide, it’s a psychological disorder, a brain malady, just like the American Psychiatric Association defined it before it wussed-out in 1973 and dropped the definition.
Huddy looks and sounds like a chain smoker that spends most of her after-work hours trying to get picked up in a bar.
I totally agree and like you was very disappointed in their performances. As Huddy was talking about invitro for herself (thumbs down from me), just out of curiosity, what do you all think of the Laura Ingraham approach? Unmarried, she adopted two foreign (already born) kids who presumably may or may not have eventually been adopted by a married couple. I see decent arguments on both sides.
Thanks for the pings. I’ll check this out tomorrow.
Been very busy lately.
Their desire for children is a natural desire. It follows that a man would be involved in their lives....also nature.
Those two, a man and a woman, by nature will have children and raise them. What prevents the fulfillment of this natural desire by these women? I’m sure there’s a lot to do with personality, right man, personal commitment, etc., but one of the requirements is time. These women have given away the time of their lives to engage in the news industry, and they have no time for mothering.
In that regard, it’s a terrible thing for Laura Ingraham to take on a couple of adopted kids. I’m assuming there’s no man in her life, but I don’t really know if she’s married or not. If, however, there is not one, then she begins an enterprise in raising children in which she doesn’t have the time to devote to them, and the kids only receive a one-sided worldview, the female side. She is depriving them (son or daughter) of the male-sided view. (Research released by Family Research Council last week demonstrated the 4 times greater likelihood of young girls being lesbian who are raised without a Father.)
You can’t send the message to young boys or girls that MEN are not important or that WOMEN are not important. They are the ying and the yang of healthy growth in understanding relationships. Yingless or Yangless, and you have a child crippled to some degree.
I am quite puzzled by Ingraham's approach both to the adoption and the fact that she has never married. She also tends to have conservative lesbians both as friends and guest hosts. Two plus two.
Nice to get an eye-opener every now and then.
This thread says that those we have thought were our friends are not.
It also explains why so many of these “conservatives” are so quick to jump on the Mitt Romney bandwagon.
Well I'd like to jump on it so I could start throwing people off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.