Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

...who even is Hilary Rosen?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I salute Rosen for unintentionally giving Romney a boost among women just when it was needed. The sooner the gender gap can be closed, the better. We only need 47-48% of women, and it won't even be close.

Romney will not, of course, get that percentage of the female vote in a million years.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

When did:
1) (making a great choice) marrying well.
2) building a great family the traditional way (countless great choices)
3) making it on your own   
4) achieving the 'american dream'
5) struggling through cancer and MS inspirationaly
become a dis-qualifier to speak or be listened to? 

Democrat culture war fail.   
 

Not a disqualifier to speak or be listened to, but the subject is economics and the person in question has literally never held a paying job.

This will be forgotten faster than Kony by next week. Let's move on.

Hopefully the males in the Democratic Party's apparatus will keep repeating this from now until November. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

We're coming for your soccer moms with the New King of Triangulation!

Sure is nineties in here.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The sexualities of the people involved aren't even slightly relevant.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The sexualities of the people involved aren't even slightly relevant.

yeah, sure....

If Ann Romney was a lesbian mother of five, or of any other number of children including zero, who had never held a paid job she'd be just inept an economic surrogate for a major party's presidential candidate.

I think your image of lesbianism is stuck about thirty-five years ago.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If Ann Romney was a lesbian mother of five, or of any other number of children including zero, who had never held a paid job she'd be just inept an economic surrogate for a major party's presidential candidate.

well, my wife hasn't worked in 17 years, but she makes >90% of the purchases and is well aware of the real world of economics.

But is she the economic surrogate to a presidential candidate?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

as you well know, I side with God on the issue, and His image of it hasn't changed since Adam and Eve.  And, as you also well know, you choose to blind yourself to the truth.
[/quote]

Even with God not admitting of change the world most certainly is. 'The lesbian' is not a monolithic social entity fixed from eternity that can be defined by its hatred of motherhood. You're applying sacramental characters to identitarian concepts, which is truly bizarre. I assure you, I can see a lot more and further than you can.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Even with God not admitting of change the world most certainly is.

yeah, and the current world is destined for fire...so I choose to side with God.

The world is what we're discussing here, and Hilary Rosen's and Ann Romney's respective places within it. God does not speak through Hilary Rosen's mealy mouth for the purpose of discrediting her sexual orientation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

hate to clue you in, but homosexuality ain't exactly the embracement of human reproduction.
[/quote]

Hate to clue you in, but 'embracement' isn't a real word, and 'motherhood' socially is not the same thing as biological reproduction. For somebody with pretenses to being a Christian, you're absurdly obsessed with the carnal.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've never seen it in any actual writing and I read about one book a week. Also, you were using the transitive form and I'm honestly not sure how 'to embrace' can even be intransitive.

why are you discussing correct word usage with a native Texan?  here is the link to Webster, you'll see embracement is a noun form of the word:

intransitive verb
: to participate in an embrace

— embrace·able \-ˈbrā-sə-bəl\ adjective
— em·brace·ment \-ˈbrās-mənt\ noun
— em·brac·er noun
— em·brac·ing·ly \-ˈbrā-siŋ-lē\ adverb

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embracement

Here are several examples of its usage:

http://www.wordnik.com/words/embracement

Oh, so it seems to be a neologism of some kind, or at least something that's used more frequently now than it used to be. I was unaware that this was a word and although it's not one that I think the English language needs or that my spell checker accepts thank you for alerting me to it.

Webster also has a kind of odd idea of what 'intransitive' means, but I suppose they can take that up with the linguists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

you'll have to forgive the bible for not bothering to parse homosexuals into different groups...but I think you'll find it also doesn't bother parsing fornicators, liars, drunkards, etc, etc, etc.
[/quote]

'Homosexuals' are a social phenomenon that didn't exist in Bible times. The Bible certainly portrays people involved in personal bonds, physical or otherwise, with people of the same sex pretty diversely.

It's also not so much that you're totalizing per se, which is a problem that everybody has, as that you're objectively wrong, perversely obsessed with other groups of people's sex lives beyond even the interest that they themselves have, and feel no desire to change any of this because you pride yourself in deliberate and aggressive ignorance wrapped in theme-park, heretical Christianity.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Webster also has a kind of odd idea of what 'intransitive' means, but I suppose they can take that up with the linguists.

The transitive/intransitive divide really doesn't apply to Modern English verbs as much as it does in other languages, since there is no morphological distinction between the two categories as there are in some other languages.  It can be used intransitively, which seems to be all that Webster's cares about.

I know, I've noticed that about English since I've begun studying a language (Japanese) in which transitivity pairs are grammatically important.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, as I said, the Bible has any number of things to say on that as on many subjects, as does lived experience if one bothers to actually make a token effort at comprehending the objects of one's opprobrium.