"No Thanks, Bernie: Virginia Abortion Rights Advocates Know Better" (Title)

[Rilgin]

61. You do know that you brought LBGQ Rights into discussion? Not Me.

You asked if we could sacrifice those rights implying that the rights of LBGQ individuals was also something that demanded purity. I know where I stand and have stood for 40 years since the age of 18. I do consider equal rights for everyone as a moral issue. However, there are politicians that you support that have sacrificed elements of absolute support of equal rights for political reasons. I am pretty sure (not absolutely sure) that you have not had the same sense of purity outrage about these candidates.

I am glad you don't care about Hillary. I don't really either at this point but your purity should apply to her and Obama as well and I am sure you will not really do so. However, what you don't say and what would actually make your purity outrage more genuine (rather than another chance to hit on Bernie) would be your outrage at the time against those candidates based on your standards that support for bad law is a line that can not be crossed and is absolutely defining of a candidate years later.

BTW, I sent you an actual link to Bernie's speech in Omaha the other day so you could see that the NYT article you have been using is making up a characterization of that speech rather than accurately reporting. Have you examined it yet? And yes, you have accurately reported what the Times said but are using that to say that the Times is proof that is what Bernie said.

You do know that at one point Mark Twain was called dead by numerous newspapers. When it turned out he was not according to him, which would you believe, the proof of your eyes or the fact that newspapers reported it? Was Mark Twain dead as the Newspapers reported or was he alive using his own words as proof?