What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- Winghunter, on 12/14/2007, -22/+11That isn't but the slightest of the Hucksters serious and many problems of his pathetic record where he's right on one thing... women don't have any business placed directly into combat but, should certainly be trained and ready to fight when necessary to defend. That's just the way it is for several reasons.
- BenMuldowney74, on 12/14/2007, -5/+1speaking of womens rights, huckabee should be arrested for making these women pose like this, how scary: http://rattube.com/blog1/2007/12/13/huckabee-i-fli ...
- altgeeky1, on 12/14/2007, -1/+9>.. women don't have any business placed directly into combat
I always thought the answer to this debate was a single set of tests that all must apply, regardless of gender.
This takes sexism out of the equation, be it perceived sexism or institutional. No glass ceilings.
When a woman can pass the tests for special forces, good for her. If someone says that's unlikely... *shrugs*.. at least it's not a closed door by policy.
>[women] should certainly be trained and ready to fight when necessary to defend
Totally in agreement. Unfortunately they're NOT given the same treatment, and circular reasoning is being used to withhold it.- terminal157, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4The problem is that such tests are rarely administered in the real world without taking gender into account, even when they're not supposed to. Most men find it very difficult to be as harsh with women as with men, and I assure you the male instinct to protect females is very real and always going to be a factor. While it's true that there are people out there who resent women in such traditionally male roles, whatever difficulties this might create can't be said to even things out.
- Nougat, on 12/14/2007, -5/+3"Women don't have any business placed directly into combat'? Why not? Why is equal rights actually "women *can* do anything that men can do, but they can *choose not to*"?
- mrjit, on 12/14/2007, -3/+2When your sister/daughter comes back from a POW camp brutally gang raped, I'd like to hear your story then.
- brstilson, on 12/14/2007, -0/+6men can be gang-raped, too. Should we just not send anyone into battle because of the possibility of being gang-raped at some point?
"That's it, no more people with anuses allowed in the military!"- hittnrun, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Can MOST women pick up a 250lb soldier and carry them off the battle field? Don't play games lil' rat.
- brstilson, on 12/14/2007, -0/+6men can be gang-raped, too. Should we just not send anyone into battle because of the possibility of being gang-raped at some point?
- mrjit, on 12/14/2007, -3/+2When your sister/daughter comes back from a POW camp brutally gang raped, I'd like to hear your story then.
- bowens44, on 12/14/2007, -4/+5come out of your cave, enter the 21st century......woman can do anything that men can do.
- nicko68, on 12/14/2007, -4/+5Um, no. That's the line of bs we've been fed for the past 40 years. Men and women have some differing strengths, weaknesses and abilities. In this day of political correctness, nobody wants to admit that anyone is different from anyone else. You can ignore it all you want, but it doesn't mean it's not true.
- eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4Um, yes. Your entire position is based on something we call "prejudice". As though you could ever describe every woman on the planet with a few adjectives. I know women athletes who could beat me at fighting, running, or basically any physical activity you put us into competition with.
All I have to do is find 1 woman capable of kicking your ass in whatever field you would like, and your entire argument is bunk. If you want to talk combat all I have to do is teach her how to use a gun really well. Then your superior male butt could be dropped from a mile away. Or do penis's make us immune to bullets too?
- eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4Um, yes. Your entire position is based on something we call "prejudice". As though you could ever describe every woman on the planet with a few adjectives. I know women athletes who could beat me at fighting, running, or basically any physical activity you put us into competition with.
- hittnrun, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2cana 115 lb woman carry a 250lb man on her back? NO.
- FiercestCalm, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Can a 115 lb man carry a 250lb man on his back? Why should it matter what gender they are? Should skinny dudes be kicked out of the military, too?
- nicko68, on 12/14/2007, -4/+5Um, no. That's the line of bs we've been fed for the past 40 years. Men and women have some differing strengths, weaknesses and abilities. In this day of political correctness, nobody wants to admit that anyone is different from anyone else. You can ignore it all you want, but it doesn't mean it's not true.
- bmalnad, on 12/14/2007, -1/+10I strongly disagree. Two of my turret gunner/mechanics are female. They've never let me down in an ambush.
- checkyourfacts, on 12/14/2007, -4/+9http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=4345
Here is the link to the Baptist Press that covered the original statement on Women.
Hucky...you's got's some splaining to do!!! - Napoleone, on 12/14/2007, -6/+43Huckabee: "Women have rights?"
- Minarchian, on 12/14/2007, -5/+16"A wife is to submit herself gracefully to the servant leadership of her Husband" - Huckabee
I am sure most woman think they should be chattel to their husbands like Huckabee believes.- darny, on 12/14/2007, -3/+9I'm not sure how that could be taken out of context. What a maroon!!
- Veretax, on 12/14/2007, -7/+2notice he also said that leadership should be sacrificial, That means guys that leading isn't bashing someone over their head or badgering them, or ordering them around. Leadership is taking a stand on where you as a couple are going and taking that first step with love and respect. If a Husband treats his wife with the proper dignity and respect, there is no reason that she will not trust his leadership. The problem is our culture is so much about me, that many marriages end up in divorce due to the lack of self sacrifice on the part of men.
- eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1I agree. The whole idea that the penis somehow imbues the man with leadership qualities is beyond stupid.
- pedrovoltaire, on 12/14/2007, -22/+9Huck is right on this one... in the olden days (50 yrs ago and before), women were happy. now 70% of them are on anti-depressants.
- JimmySpaza, on 12/14/2007, -16/+3That has more to do with the feminists promising women heaven on earth if they would just rebel and do things the way that those feminists wanted.
Even Gloria Steinem who admired the radical feminist Irina Dunn ("a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle") later got married when she came to her senses (a little).- pedrovoltaire, on 12/14/2007, -0/+5i was joking
- DeadRepubs, on 12/14/2007, -2/+3Ahh you're back, reported.
- JimmySpaza, on 12/15/2007, -1/+0Ahh, still nothing constructive to say. Nothing new to report. :-)
- GreyICE, on 12/14/2007, -1/+3Spaza! I knew the comments on Digg were lacking a certain familiar retardedness.
On another note, why the hell aren't you still on my block list? Can users 'fall off' block lists?- JimmySpaza, on 12/15/2007, -1/+0My previous account was disabled for unknown reasons. Digg support would never return my e-mails asking why. So, I created a new one.
Opinions other than YOURS are not necessarily retarded. To believe so smacks of intellectual arrogance...and is rude as well.
- JimmySpaza, on 12/15/2007, -1/+0My previous account was disabled for unknown reasons. Digg support would never return my e-mails asking why. So, I created a new one.
- eean, on 12/14/2007, -3/+9Back when they rape victims were asking for it and out-of-wedlock mothers were sent away to avoid the shame during their pregnancy. Things were great.
- kfed2, on 12/14/2007, -11/+3There should still be shame in being an out-of-wedlock mother - look what you are doing to your child.
Rape victims being viewed as asking for it was a mistake, and an unrelated issue.- Patrikimo, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4You must have lived in a very sheltered world. I know someone who grew up in a family where the parents should have gotten a divorce. If the parents can't love each other and act lovingly towards each other then they can't love their children correctly. Trust me, the hatred that two people who feel trapped with each other spills over into everything. Even if the parents are both good people but they may not be good for each other and that can poison a lot of other things. Really it's not the number of parents, but making sure there is actually someone around to take care of them and teach them that is the issue.
What there shouldn't be much excuse for is unplanned pregnancies, in or out of wed-lock as you should actually want your child. We have the means to prevent them and condoms and/or birth control pills are not hard to get.- kfed2, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1I agree with most of what you said (not that sheltered). Having kids is a heavily moral decision.
- eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Absolutely. They should be ashamed to be an out-of-wedlock mother. kfed2 says so! As we all know kfed2 is the last word on morality and good sense.
- Patrikimo, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4You must have lived in a very sheltered world. I know someone who grew up in a family where the parents should have gotten a divorce. If the parents can't love each other and act lovingly towards each other then they can't love their children correctly. Trust me, the hatred that two people who feel trapped with each other spills over into everything. Even if the parents are both good people but they may not be good for each other and that can poison a lot of other things. Really it's not the number of parents, but making sure there is actually someone around to take care of them and teach them that is the issue.
- kfed2, on 12/14/2007, -11/+3There should still be shame in being an out-of-wedlock mother - look what you are doing to your child.
- terminal157, on 12/14/2007, -1/+5Women weren't all happy fifty years ago, that's just foolish and ignorant. There have always been plenty of miserable people. But are there more unhappy women and unfulfilling relationships now than then? I'd say yes, probably, but the reasons for this are very complex and have to do with problems in many parts of our society. Anyone with a bone to pick with something can point to it and say, "that's the problem!" No, it's not, it's a combination of many things.
- bowens44, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2what can one say in response to this kind of ignorance?
- pedrovoltaire, on 12/14/2007, -4/+1if you weren't so ignorant you'd say "hehe"
- JimmySpaza, on 12/14/2007, -16/+3That has more to do with the feminists promising women heaven on earth if they would just rebel and do things the way that those feminists wanted.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -14/+5There hasn't been a vote on women's rights in America since 1994 (Violence against women act, harsher penalties for male abusers). And it's not really about women's rights anyway because domestic abuse was already a crime. This just made the minimum sentencing of guilty men harsher.
I guess that's why the article couldn't make one single argument about this guy's stance on women's rights. I think Huckabee is an idiot (because he's a mormon) but this article is just a sad attempt at slander.
And of course, his religious views say that a woman should play the woman's role in a marriage. But how would that affect legislation? He also thinks Jesus came to the natives and that some guy read magical scriptures from a ***** hat. I'd be more worried about that than his stance on a woman's role inside a marriage.- JimmySpaza, on 12/14/2007, -3/+6Uh, Huckabee is an evangelic Christian, not a Mormon. You're thinking of Romney.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1I was sure this was the mormon...
Still doesn't change much. Like comparing Leprechauns to gnomes.
I still don't see how he's against women's rights.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1I was sure this was the mormon...
- eean, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1It still makes him a jerk.
- JimmySpaza, on 12/14/2007, -3/+6Uh, Huckabee is an evangelic Christian, not a Mormon. You're thinking of Romney.
- straywolf, on 12/14/2007, -18/+11You know what's really bad...that there are actually still women out there that actually believe this tripe...
We need STRONG and independent women in the US. This is the kind of crap that the Muslims impose on their women for Pete's sake. Come on people...this is AMERICA!
Ron Paul in 08!- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -18/+4That "women must gacefully submit" quote was taken completely out of context. It's not about men dominating women, it's about gender roles defined by religion. He's a mormon. They don't believe in dominance, just separate roles.
The gracefully submit thing is just about putting family first, personnal material goals second. Not about wives staying at home and being a man's slave. My mother was the dominant one in our house and she felt the same way. It's just about setting personnal priorities.
And I actually agree with this point of view. Family is the only thing you can truly belong to.- darny, on 12/14/2007, -4/+10Roles schmoles. If my wife had a better career i'd stay home with the kids. If I was a better chef I'd do the cooking. Give me a freakin break dude. Go back to the stone age.
- Christianptriot, on 12/14/2007, -12/+5Too many men like yourself, submitting to their wives, has turned our society upside down, unfortunately.
- darny, on 12/14/2007, -2/+7oh my god. submitting to my wife??!! Are you crazy? How do you know anything about my marriage? How the hell do you have 3 diggs????
- eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4I'm pretty sure you are incapable of recognizing that your penis endows you with nothing special. In fact, roughly 1/2 of us carry that qualification. It's like saying I should hold domain over you because I have more hair, bigger penis, stronger arms, etc...
It certainly doesn't qualify you to hold domain over anyone, and this includes women. Want to "lead" in a relationship? Go find yourself a nice subserviant woman and live your life. But don't for a minute fool yourself into believing you are any more capable of anything because you were born with a penis.
That's beyond retarded. - ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Why does a man need a "subserviant" woman to be dominant?
A man is more capable of many things because he was born with a penis actually. It has been demonstrated. We are stronger and we are better at geographical representation, mental imagery, mathemathics and a few others.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00018E9 ...
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -6/+2Is the stonage the time where parents actually took care of their kids instead of putting them in a bacteria filled cage at the age of two in a room filled with other abandoned babies who get supervised 10 hours a day by a person who didn't even finish high-school so they could go on and have a career at the expense of their own children's emotional and intellectual development?
Sounds nice. - kfed2, on 12/14/2007, -2/+1You have missed the point entirely. The Bible verse is not about who has the career or who cooks.
- darny, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4Here are the only roles in marriage I recognize:
Husband and wife will take care of each other
Husband and wife will take care of children
(children will take care of pets and dishes)
- Christianptriot, on 12/14/2007, -12/+5Too many men like yourself, submitting to their wives, has turned our society upside down, unfortunately.
- whaambulance, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7Again, he is NOT A MORMON.
Having such heavy opinions on the subject you would think that you would at least figure out who you are talking about.- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -4/+2Yeah I was sure this was the mormon. My bad. But I still don't see how putting your family first is a bad thing.
- eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2He isn't putting his family first. He is putting himself first, and reaching wildly for any excuse he can that the rest of his family should put him first too.
Nobody should submit to anybody. If my significant other did something I disagreed with we would have to work that out, and the same the other way. Supporting somebody no matter what they do or who they are, simply because you are married, is just a bad rule to live by.
Putting your family first, simply because they are your family, is an equally retarded way to live your life. If one of my sisters were to murder somebody and I had first-hand knowledge, I'd be right there with the police.
Being a member of my family means I hold you to higher standards, not lesser. It is actually possible to live your life without sacrificing your principals AND not putting anyone before anyone else... - ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1"Nobody should submit to anybody."
He agrees with you. You, like most people, didn't get the reference. It's not about submitting to a man.
- eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2He isn't putting his family first. He is putting himself first, and reaching wildly for any excuse he can that the rest of his family should put him first too.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -4/+2Yeah I was sure this was the mormon. My bad. But I still don't see how putting your family first is a bad thing.
- darny, on 12/14/2007, -4/+10Roles schmoles. If my wife had a better career i'd stay home with the kids. If I was a better chef I'd do the cooking. Give me a freakin break dude. Go back to the stone age.
- terminal157, on 12/14/2007, -2/+11We don't need STRONG women any more than we need submissive women. That's just another agenda pushed on people, whether or not it's the "better" agenda in your mind. What we need is to not demand women be anything but what each individual woman is, and to accept and be tolerant of that.
- kfed2, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4I respect your views, but please don't try to force women into the role you think they should be in.
- Phoster, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3I imagine Ron Paul thinks women's rights are a state issue. After all, he thinks segregation and state sponsored religion are ok, as long as you don't do it on a federal level. He's also opposed to abortion and family planning. Hardly a better candidate for women.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/14/2007, -18/+4That "women must gacefully submit" quote was taken completely out of context. It's not about men dominating women, it's about gender roles defined by religion. He's a mormon. They don't believe in dominance, just separate roles.
- Wiggles2, on 12/14/2007, -11/+15*****.
- Shawn4168, on 12/14/2007, -7/+1Wow...that's creative. How long did it take you to come up with that?
- Jeffler, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Either you're a hell of a midget or bees are evolving too fast....
- woshka, on 12/14/2007, -15/+8Despite the feel good Christians (I am a Christian BTW) who think he is somehow president material, most conservatives who know anything about anything realize that Huckabee is really a socialist light. The man is not a conservative by any means.
- pintomp3, on 12/14/2007, -5/+5he's a social conservative. all of them are. the only one who is also financially conservative is ron paul.
- SouthsideIrish, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Yeah but Ron Paul will not force his social conservative views on you. If I want to use weed, spend my Friday nights with my prostitute, gamble on Partypoker.com and buy weed I can do it, without having the FBI come after me.
- pintomp3, on 12/14/2007, -3/+24he sounds like coulter's kind of president.
- brstilson, on 12/14/2007, -1/+8now if only coulter would don the apron, get married, and SHUT THE ***** UP, she'd be practicing what she preaches, and the world would be a better place.
- darny, on 12/14/2007, -7/+12why is this guy still getting on the front page? Between the rapists and the religious crap he's got about as good of a chance as I do.
- eean, on 12/14/2007, -1/+5He could win in Iowa.
- RyanBlueThunder, on 12/14/2007, -8/+4He is leading in Iowa, leading in South Carolina, leading in Michigan, closing in down in Florida, a strong third in New Hampshire, and within a few percentage points of Guiliani in national polls
No one on the blogosphere and internet technocrats believed that Kerry would be the Democrat nominee (i.e. he had zero internet presence, except for rampant attacks)...the internet is all too insulated from the real world.
I'm more inclined to believe someone from my church than some random anonymous poster on the internet...that's how most people are in America.
Overall, I've read up on the facts, and support Huckabee.- darny, on 12/14/2007, -0/+8That's it, I'm moving to Afghanistan. Less controlled by a religious right.
- eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Of course you are.
Should people have the right to make up their own life choices? No? You should vote for huckabee.
Should we all be forced to live our lives based on some 2000 year old documents that have been heavily altered to suit religious agendas? Yes? You should vote for huckabee!
Do you think the downfall of modern society was when people got to go as far as they could in life based purely on how hard they worked and how smart they were? yes? vote huckabee!
Do you think making sweeping decisions to isolate huge portions of the population, without any solid reason, is just sound policy? Yes? Huckabee again!
Huckabee! Because the last 2000 years were a mistake!
- lolwaffle, on 11/03/2008, -5/+5And yet he'll get plenty of women votes...
- Chode2235, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4Ones who graciously submit to their husbands and vote how they want them to.
- ricquejon, on 12/14/2007, -2/+2my wife and i submit to the rule of law - the constitution - and will be both voting for Dr. Ron Paul..
- Phoster, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1I imagine Ron Paul thinks women's rights are a state issue. After all, he thinks segregation and state sponsored religion are ok, as long as you don't do it on a federal level. He's also opposed to abortion and family planning. Hardly a better candidate for women.
- edwartica, on 12/14/2007, -4/+7I really hope this guy gets the nomination, because it would ensure the democrats would win the white house.
- diggjcarp, on 12/14/2007, -9/+15The American Religious Right: Taliban Light
- kfed2, on 12/14/2007, -4/+2Lets try not to degenerate into Christaphobic church attendee haters.
- Shawn4168, on 12/14/2007, -4/+1What's this "degenerate" you speak of? Digg's been in this condition for a LONG time.
- kfed2, on 12/14/2007, -4/+2Lets try not to degenerate into Christaphobic church attendee haters.
- Christianptriot, on 12/14/2007, -14/+14For believers in Jesus Christ, the bible tells husbands to "love your wives as Christ so loved the church, and gave Himself for it." (Ephesians 5:25). Husbands are supposed to give themselves and their lives to their wives. How much love would a husband have to show in order to live like that, and how loved and secure would a wife feel if her husband actually treated her like that? Ephesians also tells wives to submit to their husbands as the husband is the spiritual leader over them AS LONG AS the husband is submitting himself to the Lord and following what the Lord commands for husbands to do.
It is easy to take a simple phrase and twist it out of context. To examine the whole of what the bible says in Ephesians 5 for husbands and wives is to understand how beautiful marriage is supposed to be (between one man and one woman), and how secure it is for both husbands and wives. People always trot out that 'wives submit' line and ridicule women who do, or put down men who think this way. It is GOD's way of thinking, and for a woman to live with a Godly husband who loves her as Christ loves the church is a position that most women would love to have, in spite of what many in this discussion have to say about 'strong independent women' and not submitting because it is a sign of weakness.- GreyICE, on 12/14/2007, -7/+10Your opinion here appears to be that the husband knows what is spiritually correct for the woman BETTER THAN SHE HERSELF DOES. Good ol' Catholic argument - God ain't listening to anyone who isn't going through the proper channels. The proper channels always being 'someone else tells you what to believe, instead of you thinking for yourself.' As if God plays favorites.
- Christianptriot, on 12/14/2007, -4/+2Absolutely wrong perception, GreyICE. The husband is to submit himself to God, and follow Godly wisdom and guidance in leading his family. The man is supposed to be in line with God's word, and therefore help his wife stay in line with God's word NOT the man's word. God does not play favorites among His children.
- eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -2/+5This horrid arguments brings several questions to mind:
1. Why is the man the one "leading"? Does god talk to us through the penis?
2. How can the husband follow godly wisdom when the man has never done or said anything directly? All you have are things written by other men, telling you how to live your life. Is this ok because they had penis's?
3. How could any 3rd person possibly help you live your life more according to god's will then any person could themselves live? Unless you intend to watch that wife 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it would be much more prudent to let her make those distinctions for herself. She is probably just as capable of reading as you are.
Who knows, she might even be better at it. In which case you should be following her lead, since she would understand it better.- Christianptriot, on 12/14/2007, -4/+1You have an obsession with male genitalia...conversation ended.
- eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -2/+5This horrid arguments brings several questions to mind:
- Christianptriot, on 12/14/2007, -3/+2Unlike mythology, so much of the bible has been substantiated with historical and archaeological fact as to make it viably true even under scientific scrutiny. Regardless of that, the idea of having faith is that you believe without the empirical evidence. You believe in the wind because you see the effects of it, not because you see the wind. It is the same for believing in God and following Christ. If people waited for proof - seeing the wind or seeing God - they would simply not believe in the wind either, even though they can see its effects.
- eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2"Unlike mythology, so much of the bible has been substantiated with historical and archaeological fact as to make it viably true even under scientific scrutiny."
Um... what? Everything I've ever read anywhere they try to substantiate anything in the Bible with archaeological facts has proven it wrong. For example Jesus' birth. Except for the Bible, there is no evidence that a census took place at that time. We know of them happening before, and after, but never at that time. None of them ever involved you traveling to another city (how can you take population counts of areas if you tell everyone to leave their native area? the thing doesn't even pass logic tests.) According to Jewish prophecy the prophet had to be born in Bethlehem... so they just fudged things a little (assuming he was a real guy at all, which also isnt' supported by anything outside the bible).
I know there is wind because I can feel it. I do not "believe" in wind. I can witness it's effects on the leaves in my yard. I can see it's power when hurricanes strike. Every time I wave my hands fast I get wind. Every single time. Not maybe, not sometimes, now when the wind feels like it. Every time.
There is no god because he always lives outside our knowledge. he used to be responsible for life. Now he's responsible for starting life. He used to hold things down, now we realize gravity does that. He used to hold us in the center of the universe, now we arent' even the center of the solar system.
Your problem is you see "god" because you dont' understand something. You don't believe in wind anymore than you believe in your car. It's there. It exists. You can blink 1000 times and it will still be there. You can bring 1000 friends over and all agree the car is red. Every single person can turn the key and start it.
Much as you might like it, you don't get to vote on whether something is real or not. The wind doesn't blow because you believe in it. It blows because of heat, friction, energy from the sun, particles in an atmosphere, etc... Whether your believe in it or not, it will still be there. Not believing in wind will not dissipate a hurricane. But it would be funny to watch you try...- Christianptriot, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1"(assuming he was a real guy at all, which also isnt' supported by anything outside the bible)."
According to a 19th century legal scholar, he identified more than 150 verifiable pieces of court-admissible evidence that Jesus existed as is claimed in the bible and that He did perform several miraculous things during his lifetime. And as soon as I can accurately remember his full name (Greeley, Greenlee, Greeling, something along those lines) I'll add it back here.
But I digress. We will never change each other's ideals or beliefs. I am not a 20-something kid with no knowledge or experience outside a church or religious organization. I am rapidly approaching 50, have travelled more than half-way around the world twice - visited many places in Israel and the Middle East as well - so I am not naive, easily impressed or swayed because someone smooth-talking convinced me I should believe one way or another.
I forgive you your condescending attitude in your response to me because you do not know me nor I you. So we should best leave it as an agreeable point of disagreement, as men should do, and stop trying to outwit or outsmart each other into believeing something we won't. - eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1"According to a 19th century legal scholar, he identified more than 150 verifiable pieces of court-admissible evidence that Jesus existed as is claimed in the bible and that He did perform several miraculous things during his lifetime."
Yeah? What was his name? Give me just 1 of the 150 "verified" pieces of information. How do you verify a miracle occured exactly? That's just silly, because you could never prove today what happened 2000 years ago. Got anything from the last 200 years? I think it says something that nobody since the 19th century is quotable on this topic. The religious are desperate for such a piece of evidence, it simply doesn't exist. I understand why (it's simply been a long time), but you will never be able to prove a miracle occured today.
I'm sorry if you took my comment to be condescending. It wasn't meant that way. I was pointing out that none of what you said was true. There has never been any verifiable evidence for jesus, ever. Just like wind, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not. If there was it would have been held up long ago, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion about it. Nobody questions whether Darwin was ever alive. Or whether there was ever a pharoah named Ramses. We have lots of evidence for those things.
In fact we have lots of information about ancient egypt. What they wore, what they ate, how they farmed. We know about the gods they worshiped, the leaders they had, the wars they fought. We can even read their written language. However, there seems to be no mention anywhere, ever, of jewish slaves. Nothing at all of a mass exodice of slaves either (jewish or not).
The bible was a gathering of stories meant to convey morality in a time where we had no strong central government . It was a totally noble goal and has had a huge influence on the course of human history. To my mind it soils all that to try to prove anything in it. That's like trying to prove Paul Bunyan was 20ft tall and had a giant blue ox. The deeper you dig the sillier the whole thing gets. It would have been so much better if it had all been left alone. - lydecker, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Exactly, Christianptriot. It's ridiculous to try to "enlighten" someone one way or the other. It's not important what someone's personal beliefs are. What is important in this world is to respect that everyone is different physically, spiritually, mentally, psychologically. America is about being free to be yourself and be different.
- Christianptriot, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1"(assuming he was a real guy at all, which also isnt' supported by anything outside the bible)."
- eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2"Unlike mythology, so much of the bible has been substantiated with historical and archaeological fact as to make it viably true even under scientific scrutiny."
- Christianptriot, on 12/14/2007, -4/+2Absolutely wrong perception, GreyICE. The husband is to submit himself to God, and follow Godly wisdom and guidance in leading his family. The man is supposed to be in line with God's word, and therefore help his wife stay in line with God's word NOT the man's word. God does not play favorites among His children.
- diggjcarp, on 12/14/2007, -5/+7I have a big problem with phrases like "the bible says, the bible tells us". I deplore logic that is built upon irrationality and delusion. If I tell you that "The book of Zeus says that husbands should do this, that, etc. People should behave like this,that,etc. " you would think I'm nuts. It's not good when people regard mythology as the absolute truth.
- arbiterusa, on 12/14/2007, -4/+2Enjoy hell. You had your chance, but chose to spit in God's face and mock his word instead.
- rsklnkv, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3How very righteous of you. I bet that's exactly what Jesus would have said!
- eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2I would spit in god's face and mock his word, except the dude doesn't exist. If he were real I would fight him with my last breathe. The man was not exactly nice in any of the stories. He tortured his own son? Why? Because he gave us sin? What does jesus blood have to do with anything?
Sadly, I have to content myself with mocking your imaginary father figure to your face and laughing my head off that people like you still exist in the 21st century.
Ok, your ancestors I get. We didn't have pictures of the round earth, and DNA, and satellites orbiting other planets. We hadn't put men in space, cured diseases, or any of the plethora of things we have learned over the last couple hundred years. None of which even hints that there is a god. Every day that goes by the imaginary space that god used to fill gets smaller and smaller.
Bizarre how oddly satisfying it is.
- arbiterusa, on 12/14/2007, -4/+2Enjoy hell. You had your chance, but chose to spit in God's face and mock his word instead.
- rizzo2008, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3What the guy above is pointing out is that bible is not literally saying wives should submit to their husbands but that marriage is a two way thing. While I agree with you as a Christian, a politician has no business dictating morality. We are a free country we should not support any self-righteous politician who says women should submit or not serve in the military.
- Christianptriot, on 12/14/2007, -2/+2I don't think Huckabee is trying to dictate morality as much as he is advocating for the Godly way to do things. If you choose not to follow God's word and God's way of living, that is your decision. But he will, or should, lead and legislate according to God's word. That places him on a much higher level of integrity in many people's opinion because they can tell, by knowing what God's word is, which way Huckabee would go on issues.
- eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -1/+3Sweet. When do we start stoning children for disobeying their parents? Morality here we come!
"If you choose not to follow God's word and God's way of living, that is your decision."
Only it's not. You intend to legislate your morality upon me. I'm free to resist now because I'm protected by the separation of church and state and free speech. I'm not hearing much in the way of respect for those from huckabee. If anything I hear absolute contempt for my rights based on his ideology.
"That places him on a much higher level of integrity"
I would recommend you read the story of Jonas. God was many things in the bible, but "high integrity" he was not.- hittnrun, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1dumb
- Rippleeffect, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Where are you coming up with the idea that one should stone their child for disobedience? And DONT go looking in the OT.
- eviltandem, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Why can't we use the OT? Or are you admitting that we should disregard the 10 commandments?
- eviltandem, on 12/14/2007, -1/+3Sweet. When do we start stoning children for disobeying their parents? Morality here we come!
- Rippleeffect, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Most of these staments that people are bringing to light are not statments he's made on the campaign trail, but statements from pre-politician days. Yes he still believes them, as he should. Just shows me that he's not changing his stance or opinion on something just to get votes. I dont see many others doing that. While people may not agree with his stance on many issues, as least he doesn't flip-flop.
- Christianptriot, on 12/14/2007, -2/+2I don't think Huckabee is trying to dictate morality as much as he is advocating for the Godly way to do things. If you choose not to follow God's word and God's way of living, that is your decision. But he will, or should, lead and legislate according to God's word. That places him on a much higher level of integrity in many people's opinion because they can tell, by knowing what God's word is, which way Huckabee would go on issues.
- Veretax, on 12/14/2007, -2/+3no you aren't reading. Read it again. Christianptriot is saying that if a man is living according to the way God wants him to live, not the way he may "percieve" but the way he is supposed to live then yeah that is the way marriage is supposed to look. The problem is that people here this line and say oh that gives men license to do X or Y to their wives with no repercussions. Let me assure you, a man who hurts, injures, or however else disobeys God's word concerning loving his wife will have the consequences reaped upon him in this life and the next. The key here is that both the man and woman should be striving to grow closer to christ. None of us can make our loved ones, be they parents, spouse, or children be more spiritual, we can only encourage them to do the right things, and hope that they follow our example and walk in step with Christ. That doesn't mean that I know how a Woman should live or not, that's not the point. Husbands LOVE your wives as Christ loved the church, is a self sacrificing love. There is no greater love than for a person to lay their life on the line for another.
AS far as dictating morality, governments do it all the time. Murder, Rape, Theft, etc the government passed rules against these things because it is immoral. - Gerz1219, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4Fair enough, but then why did Huckabee and Co. take the time to sign a full-page ad specifically emphasizing the "wife-as-servant" part of the Bible? The ad is sexist posturing that only exists to put women in their place. If that were not the case, and the Southern Baptists really just wanted to innocuously state their beliefs about marriage, then their statement would have included all of your qualifications (which are proof, by the way, that the fault lies with one's interpretation and not the religion). Huckabee is unfit to be president not because he's a Christian, but because he's a misogynistic anachronism running for president in the twenty-first century.
- GreyICE, on 12/14/2007, -7/+10Your opinion here appears to be that the husband knows what is spiritually correct for the woman BETTER THAN SHE HERSELF DOES. Good ol' Catholic argument - God ain't listening to anyone who isn't going through the proper channels. The proper channels always being 'someone else tells you what to believe, instead of you thinking for yourself.' As if God plays favorites.
- diggSJaustin, on 12/14/2007, -4/+8At the risk of sounding like a Huckabee supporter, which I'm not, or an endorser of the so-called "complementarian" view of gender that he espouses, which I'm not, it's unhelpful to compare this interpretation of the Bible to the harsh, misogynistic views of women found in Islamic fundamentalism and elsewhere.
Again, I disagree with him on this and other issues, but it might be wise to research the ins and outs of his actual view before spouting off. It's only gracious, and your (and my) arguments against Huckabbe and in favor of egalitarianism will be the stronger for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism, or for the best expression of the dissenting view, http://www.cbeinternational.org/ - kfed2, on 12/14/2007, -4/+4Ask anyone who has been in GROUND combat if they think their girlfriend/wife/daughter should be forced to go into a situation like that. I am X USMC, current Navy, and I can tell you that combat on the ground is NOT the same as what the Navy and Air Forces do.
- Christianptriot, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2I am former Navy, but you will ALWAYS be a Marine, and that is a good thing in my book! Semper fi, Shipmate!
- DeadPanDan, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1That's nice, but if a woman wants to serve her country in combat why the hell should her man get to overrule her wishes? And what the hell do you mean "forced" into combat? The draft hasn't been around for a while.
- stellarwinter, on 12/14/2007, -7/+1Huckabee's record on women's rights or how women should be treated in general, is almost as horrible as Bill Clinton's....but not quite.
- arbiterusa, on 12/14/2007, -2/+5What? Huckabee has never raped a woman in his life. Can't say the same about President Clenis.
- hittnrun, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3please give us examples of Huckabees women's rights record besides this out-of-context smear job line.
- dayalsoap, on 12/14/2007, -11/+4The liberals are trying to spin things again; go figure (refering to the comments).
Fox reported this accurately, and explained both sides of the argument. - kick, on 12/14/2007, -8/+0Huckabee is a jackass but I tend to agree about putting women into combat. The Israelis tried it and it was a disaster. There were severe blows to a unit's morale when a female soldier was killed in combat.
- kurtwinter, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4Sorry, but IDF chicks are the hawtness
- vanadium77, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Uh, I don't know about you but the Israeli women in their military are some of the most badass commandos in the world.
- arbiterusa, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Those chicks are ***** babes, and after they get the ***** shot out of them you have a bunch of new orifices to plow. Where's the downside?
- kurtwinter, on 12/14/2007, -0/+12Digg me down for supporting Paul, but do you see any other candidate from the GOP worth voting for? They are practically guaranteeing that Hillary wins. Good jorb.
- Rippleeffect, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1I dont see Hillary getting the nod either, do you?
- FiercestCalm, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Ron Paul's bitchin, unless you're a black person. But I guess they don't count?
- mwalker05, on 12/14/2007, -10/+5will you guys get over it already. huckabee believes what the bible says (he was quoting scripture when he said wives should submit) if you look up the scripture instead of taking it out of context you would see that wives should submit to their husbands in matters that are reasonable and that men are to love their wives as their own flesh and die for them if need be. so any man following this would never put a woman in a place where her rights come into violation. basically it means that the man is the ultimate decision maker in the family after having input from the wife.
FTA: "women are certainly as capable as men of serving in the Senate." This quote from huckabee should be your focus. he is clearly not sexist, merely an old fashioned baptist.- JayWright, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Which matters are "reasonable" for a woman to SUBMIT to her husband?!?
Bible is LAME
- JayWright, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Which matters are "reasonable" for a woman to SUBMIT to her husband?!?
- arbiterusa, on 12/14/2007, -10/+2He's got my vote. A woman's place is in the kitchen or on her knees.
- mrjit, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Grow up.
- fani, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Your place is beside ***** in the 19th centtury
- arbiterusa, on 12/14/2007, -6/+2Damn right. And my wife will be standing 10 steps behind me, with her mouth shut. Yours will probably be yelling at you and making your life a living hell. Enjoy that feminism!
- fani, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3No, your wife will have long left you and you'd be left with *****.
My wife and I will be happy in the 21st century. Feminism doesn't mean submission of women or women all become bitches. Feminism empowers women to stand beside their husbands, not 10 steps behind.
- fani, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3No, your wife will have long left you and you'd be left with *****.
- arbiterusa, on 12/14/2007, -6/+2Damn right. And my wife will be standing 10 steps behind me, with her mouth shut. Yours will probably be yelling at you and making your life a living hell. Enjoy that feminism!
- Morky, on 12/14/2007, -1/+720 years ago, this guy would have been a joke candidate, the likes of Pat Robertson. Is he really mainstream now?
- Quick2822, on 12/14/2007, -2/+6Apparently Huckabee supporters are just as bad as he is when it comes to the rights of women. Look at all the dugg down comments trying to defend him. Like most religious people, they pick and choose what they want to follow from the bible and what they want to ignore but claim they get all their moral values from the bible.
One of my favorite scenes about this is from The West Wing.
President Josiah Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.
President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?
So when people claim that they get their moral values from the bible, they actually don't. The bible doesn't say which morals to accept and which ones to ignore. So with respect to this submission, Huckabee and his supports can choose to ignore this "value" but don't. Yet they choose to ignore the ones that talk about rape, murder, and sodomy. Where do they get the moral value to ignore those? Not from the bible.- SantafromNorth, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Awesome post! I love when the "we're going to hell in a handbasket" Bible thumpers decry that the nation has turned away from the Bible, but then want to select what they want to observe from the book like a Chinese Take-Out menu! When the Bible thumpers like Huckabee can get a cogent way of living out of that book with all the proscriptions and contradictions, maybe the rest of us will not think of them as a bunch of hypocrites. Somebody should ask "Hick" Huckabee & "Magic" Romney if they wear clothing of mixed fibres?
- Christianptriot, on 12/14/2007, -2/+2Again, references to the Old Testament laws, from under which we no longer have to live because of the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
- SantafromNorth, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Ah, the Biblical shell game! Nice straw man argument coming from you. Jesus said love your neighbours as you love yourself. Jesus said do not judge others lest ye be judged. You yourself said that Jesus said we do no have to live under the laws for Levites. Then why are all the fundamentalists quoting from Leviticus as an attempt to condemn homosexuals? Jesus had no opinion on them from any of the Gospels. Care to answer honestly or are you going to pick one from Column A and one from Column B theologically?
- Rippleeffect, on 12/15/2007, -2/+1Dont need to look to Lev to condemn homosexuality. Just check out Romans.. Its clear enough.
- SantafromNorth, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1Ah the Letter of Paul to the Romans... That is always the other biblical shell game used when the reference to Leviticus does not work to sway someone. The problem with using Paul as a reference is:
a) Paul never met Jesus and was a Zealot in his previous spiritual faith.
b) Paul had a 2 week crash course with the Apostles in the teachings of Jesus before preaching.
Do you really think Paul absorbed the same amount of teachings that the Apostles did from Jesus in the amount of time they spent with Jesus (which was longer than 2 weeks)?
No Gospel provides an account of Jesus addressing homosexuality directly, so I guess He wasn't too concerned with it since he had bigger fish to fry, so to speak.
- SantafromNorth, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Ah, the Biblical shell game! Nice straw man argument coming from you. Jesus said love your neighbours as you love yourself. Jesus said do not judge others lest ye be judged. You yourself said that Jesus said we do no have to live under the laws for Levites. Then why are all the fundamentalists quoting from Leviticus as an attempt to condemn homosexuals? Jesus had no opinion on them from any of the Gospels. Care to answer honestly or are you going to pick one from Column A and one from Column B theologically?
- Christianptriot, on 12/14/2007, -2/+2Again, references to the Old Testament laws, from under which we no longer have to live because of the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
- Christianptriot, on 12/14/2007, -4/+3It is so convenient and easy to take one snippet from the Old Testament, which is God's law to the Hebrews, and twist it to make a ridiculous argument for your own ends. The Old Testament law could never be fulfilled by the Hebrews and God knew it. that is why Jesus Christ came to earth, so that we could live under grace, free from the law. Otherwise no one would be able to go to heaven.
sitting on the sidelines and throwing rocks is easy... - Rippleeffect, on 12/14/2007, -2/+2Totally out of context still. This was directed at the Nation of Israel, and is only useful now for people like you to thump the Bible yourself. Way to pick and choose your scripture sir.
- geekanarchy, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3The unfortunate thing about referencing the Bible is that most everyone does it out of context, including a majority of Christians. Most of the laws in the Old Testament were written specifically for the Hebrews or in some cases, only for the Levite tribe. With the New Testament, it was said not to try to follow the old laws, because you'll fail. You never see Jesus forcing his views on others, but rather leading by example and letting people make their own decisions. Sadly, most Christians (including Huckabee) nowadays ignore that little fact and go on trying to create a government where everyone has to follow their religious views using a set of laws that resemble the Old Testament more than the actual teachings of Jesus.
- SantafromNorth, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Awesome post! I love when the "we're going to hell in a handbasket" Bible thumpers decry that the nation has turned away from the Bible, but then want to select what they want to observe from the book like a Chinese Take-Out menu! When the Bible thumpers like Huckabee can get a cogent way of living out of that book with all the proscriptions and contradictions, maybe the rest of us will not think of them as a bunch of hypocrites. Somebody should ask "Hick" Huckabee & "Magic" Romney if they wear clothing of mixed fibres?
- weside, on 12/14/2007, -7/+4All these dumpster-digging stories about him that have been on Digg have only put him more in the public eye, as he is now only one point behind Rudy, who's barely Republican as it is, with Dem values.
Huckabee in '08.
Keep the stories coming, you idiotic liberal, athiest, pro-drug, pro-baby killing, Digg Nation. You're only helping his cause :)- JayWright, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2If you hate the Digg community so bad then WHY ARE YOU HERE?!?!?
- weside, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2For the other stories not dealing with the issues I mentioned, of course :P
- nikalafayme, on 01/15/2008, -0/+0Keep copying and pasting that same message in every article that mentions Huckabee. You're only helping his cause by showing your intolerance of people with opinions differing from your own.
- JayWright, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2If you hate the Digg community so bad then WHY ARE YOU HERE?!?!?
- ramiro, on 12/14/2007, -9/+4Another smear job. The higher this Christian candidate goes, the more rabid the smear jobs will be.
- DeadPanDan, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1It's not a smear if it's true and relevant.
- HereticChick, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1How can it be a smear when the SBC condones and PUBLISHES his freakin' statement??
- hollywoodphony, on 12/14/2007, -4/+4I'm totally voting for this guy. Just don't tell my girlfriend.
- wil2200, on 12/14/2007, -2/+4i don't understand not just this dude but so many people in this country that is simply anti-woman; against women's rights and still dare say we live in a democracy
it's her body and she bears responsibility for it - if she wants to get pregnant and have 1000 abortions, so ***** be it - LEAVE her the ***** alone. If you are so concerned with preserving life and defining over and over again what conception is - feel free to *****, get pregnant and have the damn kid. If not, stfu and let people do as they choose. We have enough people in the world, i don't see the point in wishing for a ***** more - itisfritz, on 12/14/2007, -2/+2If I married a woman and she "submitted graciously" i would divorce her. That is so depressing to think that his wife could not even love him and the only reason they are together is because of compromise. Maybe thats why divorce rate is so high; women wanting to submit to husbands because they are "supposed'' not because they love each other as partners.
- hittnrun, on 12/14/2007, -2/+1Uh, I don't think you libs have legalized the marriage of a man to a goat YET. Keep your chin up though.
- itisfritz, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2I'm not sure what the point of your post is.
- hittnrun, on 12/14/2007, -2/+1Uh, I don't think you libs have legalized the marriage of a man to a goat YET. Keep your chin up though.
- hittnrun, on 12/14/2007, -5/+3do any of you liberals have a shred of adult reading comprehension skills or have you been rendered stupid by your lifdelong use of ADHD medications? So Sad.
- JayWright, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1Umm.. What?
- itisfritz, on 12/14/2007, -1/+0what is your deal? Hey hittnrun your prejudices are showing.
- hittnrun, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2what prejudices are those? Against IDIOTS??? Yep, you caught me.
- JayWright, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Ew. You just made me read Fox News dot com. :(
- surfbrands, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3Read Ephesians 5:21-25 Wives submitting graciously unto their husbands and husbands so committed to their wives even if it meant dying for them....and your problem is....?
- DeadPanDan, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Submission is the problem. Some of us aren't content with having the same social structure as chimpanzees.
- LCTN, on 12/15/2007, -2/+2I'm going to vote for Mike Huckabee!!!
- Yage2006, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Huckabee seems to be playing all the right cards to get elected though.
Hes got the creationist vote for sure does not believe in evolution or science.
And the sexist vote as well as the racist vote and probably a big majority of the religious vote. + Hes a total dumbass that does not have a 3rd grade knowledge of science.
I think hes guaranteed at least 55% of the vote.
Yupp sounds like your next president judging by your last elections so Njoy :) - Thestack, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0"If I married a woman and she "submitted graciously" i would divorce her. That is so depressing to think that his wife could not even love him and the only reason they are together is because of compromise. Maybe thats why divorce rate is so high; women wanting to submit to husbands because they are "supposed'' not because they love each other as partners."
You are really not very smart are you? I also must guess that you have never been married. For the sake of letting everyone ostracize you I will tear your statement to bits. One, lets look at your first few words. I can tell you have maybe never even had a girlfriend by that first sentence. Really? Divorce her? So you hate being happy I suppose, do you really think that you are going to love someone who is always at odds with you? I don't even think you know what it is like to submit to anything but a TV dinner and a box of porn. Two, compromise is what keeps all marriage together. You MUST compromise in order to live with each other. Do you really wish to imply that you would force your wife to adhere to all your commands or is your first sentence proof that you wish to have one month relationships with no sex. Three, people enter into marriage because of love. Why in the world would someone divorce if they both are doing nice things for each other. You have really proven to everyone here that you know nothing about relationships. Additionally if you have been married for sometime then you must be letting your wife keep it together because otherwise no woman would love you. O and if I have looked at this wrong and you are a women then understand that you may not be married or stable with love because you have no idea how to keep a long lasting loving relationship.
Thank you for being insulted.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is