False.

Roughly 8% of males are gay. And those are just the ones who answer the question. In reality probably 10-12% of the population is either gay or bisexual or at the very least a 2 on the Kinsey Scale.

They don't have to. They can not offer insurance and pay the fine, they have a choice.

Half of the directors immediately beneath him in rank resigned over his appointment. Citing his discriminatory actions and rhetoric towards the LGBT community. So yes, it is an important topic for Eich because his directors resignations wouldn't have been for the reasons they cited otherwise.

Freedom of association. Eich is free to spew all the hate he wants and donate to whatever political cause he wants. The rest of us are free to not associate with him or do business with his company. Boycotts are a perfectly acceptable response to bigotry.

As far as pragmatism goes, Eich and his ilk are the biggest example of not wanting to work together over strong disagreements there is. Look at how many filibusters have been held, how few bills passed, how many attempts at repealing law in recent years over in DC. Hitting conservatives in the wallet over their childish temper tantrums is also a perfectly acceptable response.

We're overpopulated to begin with. We WANT birthrates to level off if we want our economy to improve for the lower classes, which we definitely do.

And secondly, there is no "left" in this country, politically. That you think there is shows just how uneducated on the subject you are.

The LGBT community tried that. What the steeplechasers promptly did is why that is no longer an option.

"Civil Unions" and "Marriages" in many states are anything but similar and don't confer anywhere near the same rights. Because conservatives promptly passed laws to make that happen the instant civil unions were granted.

Conservatives shot themselves in the foot by doing that, because they gave the LGBT community no choice but to push for the whole shebang.

The employees don't want him either, half of his directors resigned over his appointment.

Except that the most widely distributed version of the Bible is the King James Bible, you're mostly correct.

Vigorous checks and balances and input from scholars don't mean jack shit when it has been rewritten to either A: allow a king to divorce his wife or B: push for military campaigns into the east.

Not to mention the Apocrypha, and the fact that it only exists because it was left out by a council called by a Roman emperor trying to consolidate power in a religious uprising of sorts.

Nobody is suggesting that he be muzzled.

Freedom of association and all, the company that appointed him CEO is not free from the consequences of having done so. We are defending his right to say whatever he wants, whether it be in the form of speech or lobby money. We are punishing his antisocial actions by refusing to do business with him.

There is no hypocrisy in that.

We have a different definition of "Politely Disagreeing."

When I politely disagree with someone, I just continue about my way. I don't lobby the government to relegate them to second class citizenship.

I've been doing some research too, Netduino is pretty robust, compatible with many of the Arduino shields AND inherently supports all the .Net Gadgeteer sensors. Seems like a good start on the road to hobby robotics.

The beautiful thing about language is the inferences that can be naturally made and understood in certain phrases because of your continued use of a language. Saves everybody time, and it makes grammar snobs like you seem annoying, which hopefully keeps your arrogant ass out of the gene pool.

The thing about situations like this is that resolving issues ultimately comes down to who has more bargaining chips. If Iran all of a sudden realizes that push is going to come to shove BEFORE they have the capability to use their trump card, capitulation is suddenly much more likely.

Sometimes a good mediator isn't afraid to deflate one party's ego so that they can come to realize that their ass is grass if they don't sit down, shut up, and take the deal that's being offered to them. This is one of those situations where one party's ego is far bigger than the pile of chips they have in front of them. If efforts aren't made to knock that party's ego down a few notches, a peaceful resolution is not likely.

You're kidding, right? The US rolled up Iraq in less than a week not only once, but twice. As far as invasion is concerned, the US has the best track record of any modern military. The "problems" you hear about involve occupation. The fact that you're ignoring the fact that the problems we're facing in our occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq don't even hold a candle to the occupational efforts of other modern militaries is of course typical of the liberal mindset. We were in Japan for 40 YEARS, 4 Decades before they got back on their feet, we were in Germany for 30. We still hold the Philippines, Guam, Somoa, etc..

Iran would be rolled in less than a week just like Iraq was, twice. The only difference would be Israeli troops on the ground with US logistical and heavy arms support as opposed to a full American invasion with US boots, bombs and small arms headed inland.

Ultimately, it would primarily be the fault of the politicians that stir up fear and anger for political gain, ie., primarily conservative politicians.

While I'm not going to try and say that conservative politicians DON'T do what you just said, I am going to say that they are the least guilty of it.

Fear-mongering has been the mainstay of the Democratic party since its inception. Global Warming, Code Pink, AFL CIO, running the most racist presidential campaign in American history, Jim Crowe laws, segregation, the liberals in our society are always far more suggestive of extreme measures and even violence than conservatives. It may not be as outright as the religious fundamentalists can get on the right, but the liberal left has been on a campaign of indoctrination and demonization, teaching our kids and pushing in the media that conservative values are always mean and evil. They then ironically use the very will to do violence that most conservatives have to justify threats of violence or other extremes themselves. They point and holler about how evil the big scary conservatives are and then grimace their teeth thinking that they're justified, and try to do away with conservatism completely. Gun control is a big example of this. The hardcore green movement is another.

Instead of listening to what MSM has to tell you (this includes Fox News), try opening up a history book. The tally is pretty clear in the pages of history who the fear-mongers are, and who they always have been. FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, and now Obama have all tried to do the exact same thing, little by little. Either by going after property rights (FDR, Truman, Clinton) or taking away their ballots (Kennedy, Clinton, Obama), all the Democratic presidents in the last century have tried to minimize the voice or weight that the conservative silent majority holds. They did this by fostering fear, and using it to grab our liberties, one by one. The liberals are the ones that aspire to ruling elite status once only held by kings and despots (or at least those that pose as the leadership of the liberal ideal), at least the conservatives are actually concerned about what little they try to induce fear over.