"I'd like to make a toast" and "Make your bed" are my two favorites.

"Jumping the gun" should definitely have been jumping *over* the gun instead of a gangland "jump-in" initiation.

>> ^Sagemind:

Emotions, hate and everything negative create a killer - thereby emotion, forgiveness and love shall set him free.
...And by free, I mean free to remorse and begin a process of feeling what it is to be human again.
Since negative forces create a killer, condemnation and negativity will never penetrate to hard shell he has around him. The unexpected realization that someone is reaching out, someone you expect only condemnation from can be the chisels to start the first crack of remorse and acceptance that maybe someone out there cares.


Don't get me wrong, I believe that what the man did was wonderful and truly human in a way that the bitterness and hate displayed by the other people miss. However, I feel like it might be jumping the gun interpreting the emotion displayed by this scum as you (and others) have. I'm not saying that there couldn't be healing there, but I also feel like those tears may be more of the selfish and insane attitude that made him a serial killer to begin with.

I'm not sure who said it first, but Carrie Fischer had a great line in her one-woman show: bitterness is like you drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. I agree wholeheartedly that what this man did was far more productive to himself and others than the vitriol spilled by those who couldn't show compassion towards this waste. Still, I understand them and wouldn't trust this man to be anything other than what he clearly is: cold, unfeeling, and already dead.

Not to get gruesome, but this man faced FAR more compelling moments which should have evoked empathy. He faced his victims and strangled them to death (if I googled the right guy, over 90 time) Think about that. He had people in his control who he tortured. They were awake and likely pleading for their lives. Probably women. Imagine their eyes filled with tears as he did whatever horrors he did to them.

To think that a moment of forgiveness from one of his victim's families makes him in any way human is just naive. I am far more likely to believe that his tears were motivated by the same hyper-narcissism that he felt killing his victims. We will never know exactly what was going through his head as he cried in this clip, but I doubt it has anything to do with healing or becoming human. It more than likely has to do with another selfish, "I'm great and this guy gets me" insanity.

All this said, I vacillate on the death penalty. I remember the quote Gandalf says about the subject and find it one of the most compelling anti-death penalty statements: Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

This guy is about as much of a clear choice of someone I would have no problem putting to death. This isn't OJ for which you could argue that there is tainted evidence... this guy not only admits his horrible guilt, but is verifiable in a much more concrete way. Yet, I can't help but to think that we could learn from him and hopefully good can come of that, either to help prevent the creation of other monsters like him, or at least clues on how to catch them easier.

In the end though I empathize with both sides of those who spoke. I agree that the gentleman who forgave the killer will lead a relatively happier life, in as much as he can having lived through what he did, but I completely understand wanting this man to suffer after what he did to his victims. He is not human, he will never be, and I don't believe his tears are noteworthy as an example of his humanity, but rather curious as a psychopath who smiles or whistles as he inflicts horrors on others.

I would disagree with one thing they said as it may be sooner or later true. I know it VERY MUCH ISN'T real or that it even exists right now, but it will only be a matter of time most likely--so they may have jumped the gun a bit on that comment (they should have said, "There is no test to see if your genetic structure makes you more inclined to be attracted to males, RIGHT NOW."--that would have been far more correct. Homosexuality DOES have a source; since it occurs across the entirety of the animal kingdom you can basically safely assume that its cause is a genetic trait (AND even if it was psychological, it would STILL be a genetic cause!).

So, YES, sooner or later there WILL BE a test for it. When this happens it's how we use this test that will make us a good people or horrific one (as I'm sure all of you can see how this per-knowledge could lead to huge issues--even worse what happens when people decide if they want a straight or gay baby...scary stuff indeed). I think we'll find as with most things we will use this ability to test for sexual preference (something tells me they may be linked to the same sequence, so we'll probably find both to be serious) it will have both good and bad reasons and applications (for all we know being straight may have certain co-morbidities and homosexuality will also again have its own independent list of co-morbidities...).

But for now, I'm glad there is absolutely no test... What an absolute Pandora's Box that will be!

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Now it's there.
Sorry lucky, I must have jumped the gun.


No you didn't, I saw the same thing. Thanks to @lucky760 for putting it right

Now it's there.

Sorry lucky, I must have jumped the gun.

>> ^messenger:
So could you please watch the whole thing and then comment? You've spent more time doing research and replying to comments than it would have taken to just watch the thing through. And please do so with an open heart. In a nutshell, Matthew makes the argument that scripture actually does not forbid gay Christians to have gay sex. After watching it, you'll see that your comments about homosexual activity being a sin might not be scriptural, which is why nobody in this thread thinks you've actually watched it through. To claim scripture says it's a sin after watching this means you haven't watched it. That's why I invited you.

Well, I've finished watching and I have a really hard time believing that he has spent "thousands of hours" researching this, because you could copy and paste everything he has said from gay apologist websites, almost verbatim. So, there is nothing new here; just the usual twisting of scripture and dishonesty that is to be expected from people trying to justify what the bible clearly condemns as sinful. I'll give you an example of the dishonesty.

One of his arguments was to say that the destruction of Sodom and Gemmorah actually had nothing to do with homosexuality. He says that the attempted gang rape of the angels was actually just a condemnation against rape and not "committed, loving consensual homosexual relationships". He then points out that out of all the mentions of Sodom, sexual sin is only mentioned a couple of times. Which is true, but what he fails to mention is that most of the mentions aren't talking about Sodoms sins at all, but rather are spoken in a prophetic context. He then cites Ezekiel 16:49 which says

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Matthew then says that this proves that the sin of sodom was not homosexuality but arrogance and not helping the poor. It might prove that, except that this idea is contradicted by the very next verse:

Ezekiel 16:50

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

As we know from Leviticus 20:13, God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, which then cements the connection to Sodom. To leave verse 50 out in his exegesis shows his total dishonesty and MO.

The crux of his argument is in trying to overcome Romans 1:26-27, which is the strongest NT passage in condemning homosexual relations. He first tries to weaken it by putting it in the broader context of idolatry, which is actually a correct interpretation. Paul did intend to contrast it to idolatry. With idolatry, man exchanges the natural worship of God to the unnatural worship of false idols. In the same way, man exchanges the natural relations with women to unnatural relationships with men. Yet, what Matthew tries to interject here, is that this only applies to heterosexual men who abandoned their natural predispositions. He then asserts that, based on his opinion and nothing more, that because homosexuals naturally desire other men, it doesn't apply to them. Not only is this position not based in scripture, but it directly contradicts Pauls intended meaning. When Paul is speaking of natural, he doesn't mean someones psychological predispositions. He means what God intended when He created men and women. This is further evidenced by his usage of the words arsen and thelys for male and female, words that are relatively unusual in scripture but are used in Genesis 1:27, which is suggesting that same-sex relationships are a violation of the created order. We also have the fact of biology itself. It is unnatural by definition.

I could go on, but the main point is, every reference in scripture to homosexuality is negative. There is nothing there to affirm any kind of homosexual relationship, but plenty to condemn it. Matthews presupposition that homosexuality is a natural and unalterable orientation for some is clearly refuted by scripture. He acknowledges that God at least once considered it to be abomination which alone refutes this idea.

I am open to solid biblical interpretation, and if someone could present an argument that doesn't have to twist scripture into a pretzel to make it even remotely plausible, I would embrace it. That was not to be found in this presentation. Secular people of course will embrace any interpretation that agrees with their liberal ideals. As a Christian who takes the word of God seriously, I cannot.

>> ^messengerPaul states it is better to be single.Better to be single than what? Can you give me the scriptural reference?

That it's better to be single than be married, because you have more of your life to devote to the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28

Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife

But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this


>> ^messenger:
True they have higher disease rates, but I'll jump the gun and say all the other things are most likely the result of discrimination.

The Netherlands legally accepts homosexuality, but not because it's socially popular. The Netherlands is historically a conservative Christian nation at heart, but in terms of governance, they're extremely libertarian. So no matter how vile, sinful or immoral the population at large thinks something is, the higher cause is that government not interfere in people's personal choices as much as possible. Homosexuality is in fact not socially accepted in the Netherlands. It's more like the famous quote, "I may hate what you're saying, but I'll fight with my life for your right to say it," but applied to sexual freedom rather than freedom of speech.

You should have looked before you leaped:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands

The Netherlands was historically characterized by multitude of religions. Since the mid of the Middle Ages, the Netherlands was a predominantly Christian country until late into the 20th century. Although religious diversity remains to the present day, there is a major decline of religious adherence. Nowadays, the Netherlands is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe, with only 39% being religiously affiliated (31% for those aged under 35), and fewer than 20% visiting church regularly

If homosexuality were going to be accepted anywhere, it would be the most secular country in Europe. You cannot simply write off these statistics as discrimination.


>> ^messenger:
Why is it a "breakdown?" Why not just "discarding"? What families are breaking down because of men having sex? Remember that (at least by my understanding) a man's being attracted to other men isn't a sin on its own. So, what effect can gay sex have on the country? This is the part of the common argument that I have zero understanding of other than the disease angle, which alone isn't enough to label it "a behaviour harmful to society".

It's not just the disease angle, it is also the issue of domestic violence (many times more than normal), drug use, mental health, etc. This is a major drain on society, as well as a danger to children raised in homosexual households. When I say breakdown, I mean of traditional values. To redefine marriage in a society built upon the traditional (and biblical) values of marriage and family is to fundamentally transform it. The same goes with allowing gays to adopt children. This effects our entire concept of human relations and institutions. It erodes monogamy in that gays don't traditionally have monogamous relationships..in the Netherlands for instance, research shows that even in stable relationships, men have an average of 8 partners per year outside the marriage.

It also erodes the boundaries of marriage, and it's a slippery slope to polygamy. Many legal experts have predicted that laws establishing same-sex marriage will open the flood gates to polygamous relationships:

David Chambers wrote in a Michigan Law review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).

I think this article does a good job articulating this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

I agree with Krauthammer, that the homosexuality angle is only tertiary to the real problem with marriage, which I see as the abandonment of biblical morality back in the early 60s.

It's bad for children in that the family structure of two biological parents in a low conflict marriage is the ideal for raising children, and the farther you get away from that, the more problems you encounter. Consider these statistics from a federal study "Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States"

Children in nuclear families were generally less likely than children in nonnuclear families
• to be in good, fair, or poor health [Note: these three categories are considered “less than optimal”];
• to have a basic action disability;
• to have learning disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder;
• to lack health insurance coverage;
• to have had two or more emergency room visits in the past 12 months;
• to have receipt of needed prescription medication delayed during the past 12 months due to lack of affordability;
• to have gone without needed dental care due to cost in the past 12 months;
• to be poorly behaved;
• and to have definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties during the past 6 months.

Children living in single-parent families had higher prevalence rates than children in nuclear families for the various health conditions and indicators examined in this report. However, when compared with children living in other nonnuclear families, children in single-parent families generally exhibited similar rates with respect to child health, access to care, and emotional or behavioral difficulties.


http://www.christianpost.com/news/federal-report-confirms-nuclear-family-best-for-childrens-hea lth-48997/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf

>> ^messenger:

>> ^shinyblurry:

Paul states it is better to be single.

Better to be single than what? Can you give me the scriptural reference?
>> ^shinyblurry:
As far as homosexuality doing no harm, I beg to differ. People who practice it have a higher rate of disease, as well as alcohol and drug abuse, depression, suicide and domestic violence.

True they have higher disease rates, but I'll jump the gun and say all the other things are most likely the result of discrimination.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You might say that is because of discrimination, but you would be wrong. In a place like the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legalized and broadly accepted, the rates are actually worse.

The Netherlands legally accepts homosexuality, but not because it's socially popular. The Netherlands is historically a conservative Christian nation at heart, but in terms of governance, they're extremely libertarian. So no matter how vile, sinful or immoral the population at large thinks something is, the higher cause is that government not interfere in people's personal choices as much as possible. Homosexuality is in fact not socially accepted in the Netherlands. It's more like the famous quote, "I may hate what you're saying, but I'll fight with my life for your right to say it," but applied to sexual freedom rather than freedom of speech.
>> ^shinyblurry:
That's really just scratching the surface. We haven't gotten to the impact that the breakdown of traditional values and the family has on the country as a whole.


Why is it a "breakdown?" Why not just "discarding"? What families are breaking down because of men having sex? Remember that (at least by my understanding) a man's being attracted to other men isn't a sin on its own. So, what effect can gay sex have on the country? This is the part of the common argument that I have zero understanding of other than the disease angle, which alone isn't enough to label it "a behaviour harmful to society".

No clue, I just liked their name so went to look at their stuff and saw this. Just seemed out of character that's all, made me chuckle. The internet only ever matters in the moment, that's what I love about it
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Was I actually banned for it??? Hmmm...I don't even remember who it was or why everything was heated. Goes to show you how little the internet matters.
In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Sorry dude (or gal). I jumped the gun on the ban. We used to run a tighter ship around here but I guess eventually it just caused too much "free speech" drama. If you must know I banned you initially for you calling somebody a "dumb ass". That kind of direct insult is actually prohibited in our rules. However, because things get heated here, or because sometimes somebody is just being sarcastic, we've gotten a little lenient on that one.

So once again, I apologize. Maybe with more of a rapport I'll be able to recognize your intent. Keep on siftin'


Hahahahahahahaha, you banned someone for calling someone a dumbass, what the hell crawled up your butt that day

<edit> And as I was posting this in your profile I saw this in your Comedy I Know And Love playlist: http://videosift.com/video/Charles-Barkley-calls-himself-a-Dumbass It's a running theme and you are the common denominator. Love you!

Was I actually banned for it??? Hmmm...I don't even remember who it was or why everything was heated. Goes to show you how little the internet matters.
In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Sorry dude (or gal). I jumped the gun on the ban. We used to run a tighter ship around here but I guess eventually it just caused too much "free speech" drama. If you must know I banned you initially for you calling somebody a "dumb ass". That kind of direct insult is actually prohibited in our rules. However, because things get heated here, or because sometimes somebody is just being sarcastic, we've gotten a little lenient on that one.

So once again, I apologize. Maybe with more of a rapport I'll be able to recognize your intent. Keep on siftin'


Hahahahahahahaha, you banned someone for calling someone a dumbass, what the hell crawled up your butt that day

<edit> And as I was posting this in your profile I saw this in your Comedy I Know And Love playlist: http://videosift.com/video/Charles-Barkley-calls-himself-a-Dumbass It's a running theme and you are the common denominator. Love you!

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Sorry dude (or gal). I jumped the gun on the ban. We used to run a tighter ship around here but I guess eventually it just caused too much "free speech" drama. If you must know I banned you initially for you calling somebody a "dumb ass". That kind of direct insult is actually prohibited in our rules. However, because things get heated here, or because sometimes somebody is just being sarcastic, we've gotten a little lenient on that one.

So once again, I apologize. Maybe with more of a rapport I'll be able to recognize your intent. Keep on siftin'


Hahahahahahahaha, you banned someone for calling someone a dumbass, what the hell crawled up your butt that day

<edit> And as I was posting this in your profile I saw this in your Comedy I Know And Love playlist: http://videosift.com/video/Charles-Barkley-calls-himself-a-Dumbass It's a running theme and you are the common denominator. Love you!

Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.



Private citizens are responsible for quite a number of things you've mentioned, and their success.

but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role



Agreed. Why did you say that? No one is arguing that point. Government revenue should be spent on these things. My argument is about who is making those decisions and if they can be better made by those who experience these things firsthand.

Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making?



Yep. Personal savings has been bad only for the past decade or so. Economic growth in the US is primarily driven by consumer demand.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.



Now you're just making gross generalizations. You've given good examples of how government funded programs in the last century helped lead to economic prosperity, but cited one poor example within the last 5 years of how a minority (yes. minority) of the population made bad financial decisions. By that logic, *my* money management is bad because of someone in Nevada bought a house and couldn't afford it.

I know you're upset at my tiny, detailless post, but I think it's you who needs to get perspective before so obviously jumping the gun.

Everyone, including the president, says that "we have to work together blah blah" but time and time again it does not happen. Then comes the proof that lobbyists pay congressmen to speak on their industry's behalf, completely undermining the voters who placed them in office in the first place.

As a result of narrow mindedness and rigidity, the US is performing average in reading and science, and below average in math. College tuition is rising much faster than home prices. Gas is higher. Food is less quantity but more expensive. Healthcare costs are exhorbitant. Social security is dying a slow death thanks to Reagan. Medicare is always on the chopping block because it's costs are absurd. Unions are losing their rights. Meanwhile, the military industrial complex is doing very well, and corporate entities have cleaned up their books and are in the best financial position in decades *but refuse to hire people*.

You can have your opinions on why things are the way they are; republicans do this, democrats do that. The president did this, Bush did that. None of that matters because NOW..NOW you're unemployed,and/or your house is in foreclosure, and/or your kids won't be able to goto college because it's too expensive. And those jobs that were lost during the crisis? They're gone. They are not coming back. It's a mathematical reality.

Let's do some numbers now.

US tax revenue: 2.3 trillion
Currently 535 people in position to control budgetting = 4.3 billion worth of financial leverage each.
130 million people = popular vote in 2008 election
So hypothetically, if voters controlled federal budgets, each voter would have ~17500$ worth of financial leverage.

Every year, each person elects where they think all US revenue should be allocated. This, in essence, gives each voting citizen of the united states direct control of the united states federal budget. Also, each state could give their population voting control of their state budgets. For those people who elect to not make their allocations, either congress and state congress will allocate for them as usual, or the leverage they had is transferred into the remaining pool.

Why do this?

1. Because the people, the majority, know best. Congress by nature of their numbers is incapable of providing the best decisions because this country is a huge melting pot of cultures. Each state has different problems and different benefits, and the local citizens deal with them firsthand everyday. The representative system of governance worked a century ago because the population was a fraction of what it is today.

2. The entire us lobbying institution would literally collapse overnight. Lobbyists exist to manipulate congress into moving money into their direction. Since the budgeting decision has been given to millions instead of a couple, money spent lobbying is rendered ineffective to produce their desired outcome.

3. No more blame game since you now have a piece of how the pie gets sliced. Do you support the military? Allocate money to military spending. Support stem cell research? Allocate money to science and R&D. Want to get off foreign oil? Allocate the money to alternative energy sources. Worried about social security? Allocate more to the fund. Worried about our country's ability to compete? Allocate the distribution to education. Worried about debt? Pay it down. People always hate the government because of the financial decisions they make. Not anymore.

4. The internet can be the primary vehicle of how people cast their tax allocation and educate themselves on this important decision. For those who do not have access, they can cast their allocation at designated locations such as their local library or post office.

5. There are times when emergency funds are needed for disasters; Economic, weather, unforeseen events. Congress shall have control over that as time is of the essence. But if the money exceeds a set amount, the voting power shall be delegated to the people (for example, bank bailouts).

Look, it's just an idea and it doesn't deserve to be insulted. But if you feel better, then GO FOR IT! I'd like constructive feedback though.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Saying it's World War 3 might be a bit of hyperbole - or at least jumping the gun.

I remember in 7th grade, my geography teacher - Mr. Reekie, (who was also the JV football coach) told us all that World War 3 was about to start in Poland because of Lech Wałęsa's solidarity movement. It scared the shit out of me, and stuck with me as a small scar - even as a 42 year old man.

So let's not pre-escalate the situation if we can help it. Think of the children.

Socially liberal? Bull...

Like most leftists, you probably approach this from the biased perception of your own political position. You occupy a much further 'left' position than I do, therefore your perception bais tells you that I am not 'left' because I am to the right of yourself. However, you must simply accept the reality that your position is much further left than the national average.

As a person with libertarian leanings, I have the socially liberal position that abortion is the choice of the individual - not the government. I also tend to agree that the war on drugs is not really government's proper role, but that the states should be allowed to legalize some drugs for medicinal purposes. Quite a few of my political positions are 'liberal' or 'centrist' because I come from a consistent position that it is not the government's role to limit the freedoms of citizens.

Anyone who has kids and a soul would be highly cautious of ever reporting a story like this. "Jumping the gun" is an absolutely pathetic excuse for for mis-reporting the facts in a case that doesn't need to be urgently reported on

Well, first we don't know if they 'mis-reported'. That's an allegation. Regardless, since when has that ever stopped the media? Waiting for the 'facts' is not a habit of the news media in general and is in no way limited to either Fox & Friends, or this woman's story. I don't dispute that implies that the news media has no soul. But if we harp on it, then fairness demands equal harping on news outlet who discusses anything without the facts first. If we don't do that, but reserve our outrage only for cases for persons whom we ideologically sympathize with, then what does that say?

There is an obvious smear campaign going on. Rather than airing, openly discussing, and trying to come to terms with the complaints of the many thousands of protesters out there all around the US and the globe, the new media decides to post smear articles about specific individuals.

The OWS hippies have no 'terms' or 'complaints' or other specific 'demands' that they are willing to articulate. There are other videos and comments on the sift on how BRILLIANT OWS is because they refuse to have a leader, a position, a platform, or anything else that pins them down. Please tell me how anyone is supposed to have a meaningful dialog with a group that has no set of real complaints to address?

Regardless, the OWS movement is not the subject of a 'smear'. If anything, the bulk of the news media is engaged in massive cover-ups of thier daily crimes and abuses. There isn't a day that goes by now where there aren't reports of sexual abuse, rapes, theft, violence, arrests, property damage, and other violations of the law. Even Bloomberg - who has gone out of his way to slobber all over OWS - is starting to say they are going to have to take steps to deal with thier crimes and disruption. No one needs to smear OWS falsely. They do just fine smearing themselves.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Blah, blah, blah, calling people names as though I'm still in first grade, and making shit up that might or might-not be possible and then acting like it was somehow research...


Anyone who has kids and a soul would be highly cautious of ever reporting a story like this. "Jumping the gun" is an absolutely pathetic excuse for for mis-reporting the facts in a case that doesn't need to be urgently reported on. They could have taken their time, but they didn't because they aren't reporting facts. They are presenting an agenda.

Believe it or not, some people that disagree with you actually still believe that what they do is important. And some people feel that they have a responsibility to do what is important to them. This woman might believe that she is fighting for her children's very future, that "the enemy is at the gates" so to speak. Just because she's not holding a rifle doesn't mean that she's not fighting a war.

To bring this woman's children into a discussion with no facts is abuse. Using them as a weapon against her harms them as much as it harms her. No wonder she's angry, attacking children is viewed by many in this society as one of the lowest things a person can do.

I'd say that's the problem right there. The black and white thinking of someone much more on the conservative end of things than I think you are admitting to.

I've never said I wasn't conservative. I've said many times that I'm quite fiscally conservative, socially liberal, libertarian leaning, and a constitutional constructionist. But I certainly do not ascribe to the kind of moral relativism where everyting is 'grey' and there is no right or wrong. If that makes me 'conservative' then so be it.

However, you didn't wait for them before opining.

This woman's story hit almost 2 weeks ago. I waited over a week before saying a peep, but when I did hear about it I tried to find out more data.

I think the main point was -- why do you need any facts at all about this woman?

Because in order to properly judge F&F you need to know the facts. F&F is guilty of nothing except judging the gal based on what data they had at the time. At the time, the reports were "this woman left her family and is shacking up with some OWS dude". They jumped the gun because they didn't have "the facts" and you are saying "why do we need any facts?" Uh - we need the fact so we can form a proper conclusion about her. Dur. If her family is cool with what she did - more power to her. If they aren't - then she is - in fact - a slimeball.

And you have soooo many opinions about her lack of character based on a few minutes of video.

If you read carefully, you'll note I've never stated my opinion about HER. I've always said, "if". If she did this... If her husband was... If. I have stated my opinions about what she did "IF". There's a difference.