Marriage Amendment
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Disingenuous How so? :confused: Google on "Kerry Gay Marriage". His inconsistent views are well documented. There's nothing terribly wrong with it, he's a politician running in the grand daddy of all elections. Walking the fence is nothing new. Neither is falling off. As for your comment about Bush's flip-flops, how does that have anything to do with Kerry? "President Bush has promised he's going to establish elections in Iraq, he's going to rebuild the infrastructure and he's going to create jobs. And he said if it works there, he'll try it here." David Letterman
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Disingenuous How so? :confused: Google on "Kerry Gay Marriage". His inconsistent views are well documented. There's nothing terribly wrong with it, he's a politician running in the grand daddy of all elections. Walking the fence is nothing new. Neither is falling off. As for your comment about Bush's flip-flops, how does that have anything to do with Kerry? "President Bush has promised he's going to establish elections in Iraq, he's going to rebuild the infrastructure and he's going to create jobs. And he said if it works there, he'll try it here." David Letterman
dis·in·gen·u·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dsn-jny-s) adj. 1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who... exemplified... the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine). 2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf. 3. Usage Problem. Unaware or uninformed; naive. (it's a compliment! i know you know better!) -- OK. I googled.
"I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples — from inheritance to health benefits. I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision." - Kerry
too subtle for you? As for your comment about Bush's flip-flops, how does that have anything to do with Kerry? neither were flip-flops. both Bush and Kerry were reacting to circumstances that are far more complicated than any inane gotcha sound-bite analysis can handle. you can only call it a flip-flop if you strip all context from their decisions. Software | Cleek
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Disingenuous How so? :confused: Google on "Kerry Gay Marriage". His inconsistent views are well documented. There's nothing terribly wrong with it, he's a politician running in the grand daddy of all elections. Walking the fence is nothing new. Neither is falling off. As for your comment about Bush's flip-flops, how does that have anything to do with Kerry? "President Bush has promised he's going to establish elections in Iraq, he's going to rebuild the infrastructure and he's going to create jobs. And he said if it works there, he'll try it here." David Letterman
-
Hey, everyone is entitled to a mistake here and there :) On the whole, however, the man (McCain that is) strikes me as maverick pseudo-moderate Republican...which is just a hair right of where I guess I stand, so I'm starting to dig 'im. Wish he would run again...
Jeremy Kimball I have traveled the gutters, lo these many days, with no signs of life. Well met. -brianwelsch
-
palbano wrote: Just so there is no misunderstanding, I stand firmly behind what I said and I guarantee that I live it. One would never know it from reading your anti-Republican rhetoric. :rolleyes: "President Bush has promised he's going to establish elections in Iraq, he's going to rebuild the infrastructure and he's going to create jobs. And he said if it works there, he'll try it here." David Letterman
What a persuasive argument. Mostly I think you just like to disagree with me, but in this case you have clearly proven that I am in fact a person that never acts with kindness or tolerance towards my fellow man. So I guess this November I will vote Republican! Opps, almost forgot… That was sarcastic. Another mistake narrowly averted.
-
Hey, everyone is entitled to a mistake here and there :) On the whole, however, the man (McCain that is) strikes me as maverick pseudo-moderate Republican...which is just a hair right of where I guess I stand, so I'm starting to dig 'im. Wish he would run again...
Jeremy Kimball I have traveled the gutters, lo these many days, with no signs of life. Well met. -brianwelsch
-
palbano wrote: There are 10 kinds of Republicans, Rich ones and Idiots. I'm curious. How many kinds of Democrats are there?
Brian Gideon wrote: I'm curious. How many kinds of Democrats are there? Please... that should be obvious. There is 1 kind of Democrat, the ones that are not Republicans :laugh::laugh: It does appear that some people may not realize that my post was a joke and not just at the expense of Republicans. I was also aiming it at the thread in the Lounge recently about the sig. quote regarding people who understand binary. That thread was pretty funny.
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
-
palbano wrote: "Less regulations on big business making it easier for them to screw the little people and the environment over on their way to making millions for the richest 1% of the population." It's interesting to see average Joe, who is one of the ones being screwed over, vote for them. It's on par with smoking. :rolleyes: -- Ich bin Joachim von Hassel, und ich bin Pilot der Bundeswehr. Welle: Erdball - F104-G Starfighter
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: It's interesting to see average Joe, who is one of the ones being screwed over, vote for them In the US the "average joe" is the one who OWNS the damn busines's in question. When you pass a law or a regulation that cost big business money where do you think this money comes from ? Some fat cat in NY or DC. Nope it comes out of the "average joes" pocket. Either in the form of lower stock prices or the cost is passed along in the completed products. Sometimes its a double whammy. Study some economics before running down "big business". People vote Republican because they are for those things that that party espouses - maybe not everything but in terms of the big picture - less taxes and less intrusion from the Gov in ones everyday life. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
Brian Gideon wrote: I'm curious. How many kinds of Democrats are there? Please... that should be obvious. There is 1 kind of Democrat, the ones that are not Republicans :laugh::laugh: It does appear that some people may not realize that my post was a joke and not just at the expense of Republicans. I was also aiming it at the thread in the Lounge recently about the sig. quote regarding people who understand binary. That thread was pretty funny.
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
-
Hi Mike, sure I can be judgmental in the strictest definition of the word. I said "what we don't get enough of". I never claimed that poeple can operate that way 24x7, least of all me. I would not claim to be perfect, I make mistakes all the time. In fact posting all of these politically oriented messages on CP is very likely one of them. If you just wait a few minutes I might make another. However… you could be my neighbor and put up "protect marriage" signs on your lawn and I would think you were an idiot. But if you ask me to help you carry your new big screen TV into your house I would still help you. If you offered me a beer while you tuned your new TV into the WWF and told me "That's real you know" I would think you were an idiot but I would not comment and just drink my beer and thank you for your hospitality. (Just in case you are wondering, yes that actually happened to me) The real problem is that there are far too many people that never interrelate with their fellow man that way and certainly many if not most of our Leaders don’t. "What we don't get enough of", it would be great just to get even just the smallest amount more, at least that is what I believe. Warm hearts, loving kindness and a stretched out hand of tolerance. I assume that is what you are referring to? Just so there is no misunderstanding, I stand firmly behind what I said and I guarantee that I live it. NEXT!
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
palbano wrote: ...I would think you were an idiot. So people who don't hold the same opinion as you are idiots? Is it just this one subject or is it a host of subjects that this attitude covers? If it is a host of subjects I would imagine that very quickly you will discover that you are the only non-idiot on the planet. It must be nice to never have to question your own judgement - just dismiss others as idiots. Do you not take into account that the same set of facts can be interpreted in totally different ways and produce differing resultant opinions? Your dismissing another person just because they don't come up with the same opinion as you is a cop out. Dave
-
palbano wrote: ...I would think you were an idiot. So people who don't hold the same opinion as you are idiots? Is it just this one subject or is it a host of subjects that this attitude covers? If it is a host of subjects I would imagine that very quickly you will discover that you are the only non-idiot on the planet. It must be nice to never have to question your own judgement - just dismiss others as idiots. Do you not take into account that the same set of facts can be interpreted in totally different ways and produce differing resultant opinions? Your dismissing another person just because they don't come up with the same opinion as you is a cop out. Dave
DRHuff wrote: Is it just this one subject I might have considered answering that question however you don't state which one subject you are referring to. :(( So DRHuff wrote: interpreted in totally different ways palbano wrote: offered me a beer while you tuned your new TV into the WWF and told me "That's real you know" I would think you were an idiot You believe there is a different interpretation for that? I never considered that believing the WWF was faked could be an opinion. You may be on to something there. While we are on the subject how about this one: If you are a person that drives 35 mph on a six lane thoroughfare posted as 45 mph and the turns off of it into a residential neighborhood posted at 25 mph but continue to drive 35 mph, I would think you are an idiot. So you are saying that is just an opinion and not an accurate assessment of the facts? There has been a considerable amount of attention given to my use of the word "idiot". Perhaps I am the biggest idiot of the group for using a "word" to emphasize the point I am attempting to make and believing that people would not take it in some strict literal sense. At the very least this has resulted in distracting the discussion from the primary issue that was being discussed since most of the posts indicting my use of the word "idiot" did not offer any arguments for the "points at issue" in my post.
-
palbano wrote: It does appear that some people may not realize that my post was a joke and not just at the expense of Republicans. Oh, I knew you were joking. It was obvious. I'm just trying to stir up trouble :)
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: For a tree-hugging "love your neighbor" type Democrat, you sure are judgemental. No one has to love their neighbor if he craps in your yard, insults your wife, and cuts down all your trees. More to the point.. it pisses me off to here the righties spuoting about "hate". What sanctimonious crap; trying to play to left-wing guilt. In fact,I'd go so far as to say it's OK to hate someone if he kills your dog. It's not OK to hate him if he has sex with other men in the privacy of his own home.
Jim A. Johnson wrote: What sanctimonious crap; trying to play to left-wing guilt. Boy is that good. :-D <sarcasm>Can i get you to ghost write my posts for me? I'm not doing so well on my own. :laugh: I think it's because i am a fascist judgmental paranoid hypocritical moron but I'm not sure cause I'm to stupid to figure it out. But at least no one has called me an idiot. </sarcasm>
-
Jim A. Johnson wrote: trying to play to left-wing guilt. If you feel guilty about something that's your business, I was refering to Pete's apparent hypocrisy. Preaching about kindness and tolerance, yet insulting a large portion of the US society due to their political beliefs. Jim A. Johnson wrote: In fact,I'd go so far as to say it's OK to hate someone if he kills your dog. It's not OK to hate him if he has sex with other men in the privacy of his own home. #1 - I personally don't have a problem with gay marriage. #2 - While some of the fundementalists may "hate" gays, it is certainly possible to be against gay marriage without "hating" gays. #3 - Who mentioned "hate" in the first place? Not me. "President Bush has promised he's going to establish elections in Iraq, he's going to rebuild the infrastructure and he's going to create jobs. And he said if it works there, he'll try it here." David Letterman
Mike Mullikin wrote: If you feel guilty about something that's your business, I can't speak for Jim but I don't. Mike Mullikin wrote: I was refering to Pete's apparent hypocrisy. Still standing behind what I said. But thank you for adding another descriptive word to my personality. Mike Mullikin wrote: yet insulting a large portion of the US society due to their political beliefs. That's not what they are there for? :laugh: At least I haven't sunken to the level of trying to legislate bigotry.
-
Anonymous wrote: Seems the candidates didn't make it back to town to vote. [big fat yawn] There was no need. They knew the procedural vote would fail; and if it didn't, they promised to come back to vote against the amendment. Does the phrase "red herring" mean anything to you?
-
DRHuff wrote: Is it just this one subject I might have considered answering that question however you don't state which one subject you are referring to. :(( So DRHuff wrote: interpreted in totally different ways palbano wrote: offered me a beer while you tuned your new TV into the WWF and told me "That's real you know" I would think you were an idiot You believe there is a different interpretation for that? I never considered that believing the WWF was faked could be an opinion. You may be on to something there. While we are on the subject how about this one: If you are a person that drives 35 mph on a six lane thoroughfare posted as 45 mph and the turns off of it into a residential neighborhood posted at 25 mph but continue to drive 35 mph, I would think you are an idiot. So you are saying that is just an opinion and not an accurate assessment of the facts? There has been a considerable amount of attention given to my use of the word "idiot". Perhaps I am the biggest idiot of the group for using a "word" to emphasize the point I am attempting to make and believing that people would not take it in some strict literal sense. At the very least this has resulted in distracting the discussion from the primary issue that was being discussed since most of the posts indicting my use of the word "idiot" did not offer any arguments for the "points at issue" in my post.
palbano wrote: might have considered answering that question however you don't state which one subject you are referring to. I'm sorry - my actual quote is "...is it" etc. I assumed you would be able to figure out the one issue - considering what this thread is about and the ... clue to indicate I was just taking the last part of your sentence above. So to make it abundantly clear - the issue of the Marriage Amendment. palbano wrote: So you are saying that is just an opinion and not an accurate assessment of the facts? Wow - two examples - with a little effort you could probably come up with some more. I said that the same set of facts can result in a difference of opinion - I did not say that that is always true. Trivial examples do not invalidate the statement. On the gay marriage issue people have different views, I may not agree with someones opinion but I don't automatically categorize that person as an idiot. palbano wrote: There has been a considerable amount of attention given to my use of the word "idiot". Perhaps I am the biggest idiot of the group for using a "word" to emphasize the point I am attempting to make and believing that people would not take it in some strict literal sense. At the very least this has resulted in distracting the discussion from the primary issue that was being discussed since most of the posts indicting my use of the word "idiot" did not offer any arguments for the "points at issue" in my post. So if you use the word idiot people are not to take it in a literal sense? So I can also dismiss the rest of what you say because you don't mean it in the literal sense? Or do you only get to pick and choose which parts are meant literally and the rest of us just have to puzzle it out. To me - accusing people who hold a certain opinion of being idiots while trying to have a discussion with those same people reduces your discussion to the level of schoolchildren. If you want to have a discussion - have one. If you want to call people names - go back to kindergarten. I don't mean to sound preachy here - its just that I have seen many of the forums that I have participated in gradually diminish into spitting contests with no valid arguments or discussions. This board has surprised me with the level of civility and logical argument that it has maintained for so long but I have felt that it is becoming increasingly polarized and negative over the last while. I
-
palbano wrote: might have considered answering that question however you don't state which one subject you are referring to. I'm sorry - my actual quote is "...is it" etc. I assumed you would be able to figure out the one issue - considering what this thread is about and the ... clue to indicate I was just taking the last part of your sentence above. So to make it abundantly clear - the issue of the Marriage Amendment. palbano wrote: So you are saying that is just an opinion and not an accurate assessment of the facts? Wow - two examples - with a little effort you could probably come up with some more. I said that the same set of facts can result in a difference of opinion - I did not say that that is always true. Trivial examples do not invalidate the statement. On the gay marriage issue people have different views, I may not agree with someones opinion but I don't automatically categorize that person as an idiot. palbano wrote: There has been a considerable amount of attention given to my use of the word "idiot". Perhaps I am the biggest idiot of the group for using a "word" to emphasize the point I am attempting to make and believing that people would not take it in some strict literal sense. At the very least this has resulted in distracting the discussion from the primary issue that was being discussed since most of the posts indicting my use of the word "idiot" did not offer any arguments for the "points at issue" in my post. So if you use the word idiot people are not to take it in a literal sense? So I can also dismiss the rest of what you say because you don't mean it in the literal sense? Or do you only get to pick and choose which parts are meant literally and the rest of us just have to puzzle it out. To me - accusing people who hold a certain opinion of being idiots while trying to have a discussion with those same people reduces your discussion to the level of schoolchildren. If you want to have a discussion - have one. If you want to call people names - go back to kindergarten. I don't mean to sound preachy here - its just that I have seen many of the forums that I have participated in gradually diminish into spitting contests with no valid arguments or discussions. This board has surprised me with the level of civility and logical argument that it has maintained for so long but I have felt that it is becoming increasingly polarized and negative over the last while. I
I don't disagree with your points about the level of discussion in fact i already pointed that out myself right? DRHuff wrote: So I can also dismiss the rest of what you say because you don't mean it in the literal sense? Sure you can, especially if you don't want to respond to any of the points that I addressed. However when you do that, which by the way you are, it appears that you are deflecting from the actual statements that I made in all other posts. My posts containing that hideous word didn't really pertain to the main issue at hand. Many of my other posts do. This seems a little like a political deflection tactic. You don't want to discuss the points i made so you attack "the way" I said something that was totally unrelated to them while at the same time making it look as though it was related. Oh bother… not very eloquent but what can you expect from a fascist judgmental paranoid hypocritical moron. By the way, those are all names that I have been called in formus on CP some of which were before I use the hideous word. I'm a real popular fellow eh? You might want to buy my book "How to make enemies and not friends". :laugh: DRHuff wrote: AND NOW..... TWO WEEKS VACATION I hope you have a great one! And I mean that. :-D