Grayson is your basic pond scum. Too funny, I don't remember who it was, but the fellow Grayson replaced was pretty bad, as I recall, and they turned around and replaced the fellow with Grayson. Another case of, "If you thought that was bad, wait till they get a load of me!"

That's sad, because Grayson should do better. Contrary to Native O, I think we need a lot more like Grayson, people willing to stand up to the GOP crazies and call them on their BS.

There seems to be a lot of that going around lately. I guess Dems have learned well and have decided that no low is too low for them as well.

Good 'ol American politickin'...no time for the truth!

Grayson is definitely the opposite of pond scum, and the "Institute for Basic Life Principles" *does* believe that women should submit to their husbands. Given that, and the endorsement and support of the "Institute" by the candidate, it seems fair to say he does believe in the submission of women.

And, given the arch-conservative bent of factcheck.org (research it before you respond), I'd give that article about as much weight as a cheap roll of toilet paper.

To wit:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/29/121024/873

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/3434/did_the_%22taliban_dan%22_ad_%22backfire%22/

Grayson is your basic pond scum...

Yeah, but he's OUR pond scum!

Why does network television coverage of Grayson always shows him with out the red foam nose?

Why does network television coverage of Grayson always shows him with out the red foam nose?

The same reason it shows Boehner without a bottle of tanning lotion.

So, Grayson's charge that Webster believes women should submitt to men is wrong -- according to PolitiFact -- except for the stuff they admit Webster said about denying women abortions in the case of rape and incest (presumably by men), and the stuff about limiting the right to divorce if someone was naive enough to have been talked into a "covenant marriage" (also by a man, unless he's advocating lesbian marriage, which I strongly doubt). Other than that, absolutely nothing about submission.

Except for Webster's links to the people who think women should be stoned (and not in the hippie meaning of the term).

Webster's people certainly didn't deny that he believes women should submit to their husbands.

I've been to weddings where those submissive verses were part of the ceremony. I grew up in the Midwest.

Met people like that in Florida which is why I moved out.

I don't know why people get upset at "those verses" these days. They hold little meaning in the family courts as they do the exact opposite of scripture.

I don't know why people get upset at "those verses" these days.

I think that it's because some people are just as opposed to fundamentalist Christians like Webster trying to enact laws based on their interpretations of the Bible as they are to fundamentalist Muslims enacting laws based on their interpretations of the Koran (or Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc. and their appropriate religious texts).