more important that story contained specific verifiable facts. as opposed to being a story about people trying to find specific verifiable facts.

i don't know why no one seems to notice the difference.

You want people to pay attention to verifiable facts? That is so old-fashioned :rolleyes:

I give you, "The Creation Museum" ("creation, evolution, science, dinosaurs") which now proudly boasts 1 million visitors.

"The state-of-the-art 70,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Majestic murals, great masterpieces brimming with pulsating colors and details, provide a backdrop for many of the settings."

http://creationmuseum.org/

just watched 'religulous' from bill maher earlier this evening. the creation 'museum' was one place he visited-hilarious!

The more I think about it, in my fantasyland, I hope this is totally true.

He gets caught cheating, family woman Sarah Palin uses it to blast him and climb her way to the GOP nomination, every teabagger's mouth starts instantly frothing, and then the country votes and the tally confirms that Sarah Palin is still the only thing people are more afraid of than a Black Muslim Socialist Philanderer, I think I would probably die of smug pleasure. Like actually spontaneously combust from sheer hilarity and righteousness.

Even if it is true, it isn't going to topple Obama. It would be a major distraction, but those that love him will continue to do so. Cheating allegations with some pretty good proof before Clinton's first and second election and during his time in office didn't hurt him one little bit.

This Obama "affair" supposedly happened in 2004 - well before he was President, but during the time he was an elected U. S. Senator. I would think this would be the death knell of NE if they don't have substantive proof of the allegation.

I'll readily admit that what goes on in marriages is strictly between the spouses. But somehow someway I have it in my head that men and women seeking public endorsement to an office of TRUST should be held to the light of a heavier candle.

It would seem that some pre-set excuses are being made by a lot of you even before allegations are proven or not.

I don't trust any man or woman who cheats on their spouses. If they're capable of cheating in marriage, they're quite capable of cheating at anything. Get a divorce or don't get married if it's in your nature to cheat.

Yeah, I know - it's 2010. Times change. Sad!

In all honesty, did I miss the "pre-set excuses" in this thread? Can you show me them?

Pretty much all the chorus line is saying is "hey Doreen, I doubt this is true....and if it is, guess what? It's none of my business."

Those are not "excuses," they're people who think that other folks' are entitled to having certain portions of their private lives remain private...yes, even the President, Tiger Woods, and Bill Clinton. Not everyone is a huge fan of water cooler gossip. Do your job. If you can't keep your $hit in your pants, that's between you and your wife, as long as it's not affecting your job, which a 2004 affair certainly wouldn't, you know, unless someone was going around trying to craft another "pre-set" list of reasons why BO should be hated that have nothing to do with his job performance.

And, since you cherry pick one sentence out of my post to respond to, I'll add another sentence that was in my post as to why I think it's different for Obama:

<<I'll readily admit that what goes on in marriages is strictly between the spouses. But somehow someway I have it in my head that men and women seeking public endorsement to an office of TRUST should be held to the light of a heavier candle.>>

And, the pre-set excuse of yours and others is - what goes on between a man and a woman in marriage is no one's business but their own (or words to that effect). You're giving Obama a pass on the chance this story may be proven to be true.

It's impossible to say that I'm giving Obama a "pass" on anything, because the way I see it, there is no "pass" that needs to be given in the first place, because it is NONE of my business and NOT my issue to judge. I'm saying that my worldview dictates that it's none of my freaking business if he cheats on his wife, and it wouldn't my business if he was a teacher in a local school, the clerk at a local gas station, or my next door neighbor. Unless it's MY spouse cheating on ME, then it's none of my business and I have no place to make it my business because it's salacious and fun to talk about.

That's not making "excuses," that's having some line drawn somewhere in my life of the fact that there are just some things that are better off without my nose being stuck in them. Perhaps you don't have a similar line, or your line is conditional on what job a person has, as it seems to be. Mine is unconditional.

If your thoughts on politicians have a built-in "trust" policy, I hate to be the first to tell you, you're going to be let down.

I probably would, and I'd make certain they didn't get my vote the next time around if they were found out - regardless of what party they belonged to. I'm sure you'd have a lot to say if it was a Republican. I have this sneaking suspicion, however, you'd spin it some way to make your displeasure stick.

Is there hypocrisy involved with this generic Republican cheating on his wife?

Then absolutely, I'll be screaming from the rooftops. In fact, I find the Ted Haggard and Larry Craig stories absolutely HILARIOUS...it's true. But not because they were cheating, but because they had a long record of outspoken anti-gay sentiment all while they were doing drugs and getting banged by a hooker, and cruising for sex in a freaking airport bathroom, respectively.

Yes, that kind of hypocrisy is when it certainly is my business, which I don't need to spin because I admitted as much up front in my very first post on this topic, so there's no "gotcha" moment here where you've exposed some flaw in my reasoning. Generic Republican cheating on his wife? I couldn't give two figs, and you'll be hard-pressed to pin that one on me.

Well, good for you. Tell me where to mail your cookie.

Wait, did this really just go down?

1.) You try to paint me as a likely hypocrite
2.) I reiterate exactly what I already wrote earlier in the thread showing you're wrong and giving you a second chance to flex your awesome reading skills
3.) You snark at me with a 'here's your cookie' line?

You're really something.

When it comes to snarking -


Yup - I really am something. Glad you noticed.

You're showing good proficiency with those internet cartoons. Keep it up!

A picture sometimes is worth 1000 words. If the shoe fits....

Now, you seeming to need the last word, go for it.

Didn't the National Enquirer win a Pulitzer last year or something? Not that winning a Pulitzer makes a paper worthwhile, as I'm sure the Washington Post has won many of them.

Yeah..breaking a story like Watergate doesn't deserve a Pulitzer

I thought this was about Bo Jackson :)

LOL.. I thought Bo was the name of the Presidents dog?

I can see your comment's relevance since the Watergate story was only broken...over 35 YEARS AGO. Do you still pick up the New York Herald on occasion as well?