Well you see Shawn, I have to comment on what you add to the discussion. Since you add no IDEAS, just name calling and headlines, that is what I comment on. When you care to post something else, I will gladly comment on something else.
Nick
He's a theocratical radical. The Sullivan article went into that- (Sullivan who is a CONSERVATIVE)
You mean I add no IDEAS that could defend Mr. Santorum. Well if you're looking for that I'd advise you to visit one of the extreme right forums on the internet. There you will find ALL SORTS of justification for crazy acts.
You sympathize with Abortion Terrorists, remember?
1. It's not necessarily true that making one of those legal would make the others legal too. The case would certainly be decided on a much narrower basis than "if gay sex is OK, then anything goes! Yippeee!" In addition, this Texas case to which Santorum was referring will probably not be decided on a privacy basis but on an equal protection basis (because it outlaws gays from putting their sex organs in mouths or anuses while not outlawing straights from doing the same thing).
2. There is a long-standing tradition among gay-bashers to compare homosexuality to lots of really bad things like incest, pedophilia, and bestiality. I think everyone knows that, and it's pretty clear to me that he was just following in that tradition.
Oh, something else: although Santorum's comments will of course play well with certain segments of the population, there's a good chunk of moderate voters, the soccer moms and other swing voters, who will be turned off by it. Republicans are doing a great job of alienating those types that they'll want so much in about a year. It's Bush's whole "compassionate conservative" strategy.
You could be correct that the case will be decided on the equal protection basis but I seriously doubt that would be considered a victory at all. I posted the link from LAMDA that showed the state of sodomy laws in various states. Texas would just do what other states have done and that is declare all sodomy to be illegal instead of just same sex sodomy.
As for the tradition of comparing those acts, perhaps the tradition is people who make their living off of being "activists" using slippery slope reasoning to declare people intolerant when they have done nothing wrong. That is certainly the case here. I would declare that more of a tradition than what you have stated.
Likewise the homosexual community simply won't admit that it does what alot of us "heteros" have done which is have sex before the age of consent. We have no doubt that there are some 25 years old men out there attemping to copulate with 13-15 year old girls. If you suggest the same could possibly occur with two men, you are intolerant.
The thing is that many men in the homosexual community, when speaking about their first encounters say it was a younger/older combination. They should just work on growing understanding and knowledge in this area. It could be for a number reasons but the age issues with homosexuality are much less conventional. It could be because some of them try to live as heterosexuals first. It could be because they are discovering they are bisexual, lots of issues but by being unwilling to admit that they experiment early in life with sex like most of us do, they are setting themselves up for these issues.
They are part of the problem promoting this ignorance and they help to allow it to continue.
As for the vast uninformed middleground, the soccer moms and so forth. I seriously doubt this issue (Santorum comments on case) will even be around by the next election. However suppose it is, these folks barely pay attention to day to day politics. There seem to be no subtlety concerning messages around election time. Democrats will want this issue to disappear because it is very hard to get across to the general public the difference betwee supporting say civil unions and not have someone slippery slope you into saying you support gay marriage. Especially when there will be some elements of the party declaring they do support gay marriage.
These soccer moms and said types have polled as very unsupportive of gay marriage even while being tolerant on homosexual acts and relations. So I think it would be a non-starter for them and just distract from their economy message.
Do you really think they want an election scenario where Bush is talking about defending against terrorism and the economy and Dems are trying to explain how they support civil unions but not marriage.
I think Repubilcans would be salavating at such a scenario.
He's a theocratical radical. The Sullivan article went into that- (Sullivan who is a CONSERVATIVE)
You mean I add no IDEAS that could defend Mr. Santorum. Well if you're looking for that I'd advise you to visit one of the extreme right forums on the internet. There you will find ALL SORTS of justification for crazy acts.
You sympathize with Abortion Terrorists, remember?
Go get some sun, you've been staring at that screen to long.
You can try to link me to whoever you want. Your inability to discuss the intricacies of ideas means you limit yourself to large broad, unsupportable, extreme alternatives. If you want to militantly declare all abortion wrong because you cannot discuss differences in support and morality along the time frame of a pregnancy, then that if fine. Revel in your own limits.
See in the world of ideas you are not the sole arbiter. So I am glad to let you type foolishly and reveal your own limitations.
Go get some sun, you've been staring at that screen to long.
You can try to link me to whoever you want. Your inability to discuss the intricacies of ideas means you limit yourself to large broad, unsupportable, extreme alternatives. If you want to militantly declare all abortion wrong because you cannot discuss differences in support and morality along the time frame of a pregnancy, then that if fine. Revel in your own limits.
See in the world of ideas you are not the sole arbiter. So I am glad to let you type foolishly and reveal your own limitations.
Nick
You provide the worst examples.
First you want me to predict the future.
Then you're talking about my views being absolute, when they apply only to Santorum's comments.
All the while, you bitch and moan about no one supporting your nowhere near pro-homosexual cause.
So it doesn't quite work when you call MY views simplistic.
Most of us here (except you two) would submit that Santorum's comments lend themselves to it.
Everyone except "us two"? Sure about that? I'll roleplay as giant for a moment and ask for sources, links and suggest you conduct a study to make sure...otherwise, it's just "opinion".
Hey, don't yell at me.
I don't know about Santorum's comments. I think to people with a certain political mindset and worldview, maybe they do. He is, after all, a Republican. And we all know that they'll get far less leeway on comments regarding homosexuality and race. I could see it being divided along belief lines. I could also see a prominent, up-and-coming Democrat saying the same thing and be let off a tad easier (and you know it).
I also tend to fall toward the "don't wake up every morning, looking - and expecting - to be offended or feel the need to fight injustice, Republicans and evil corporations on every level" side of life, so, no, I probably - no, make that definitely - don't get all of this.
Maybe I need to be gay? Maybe I need to have thinner skin? Maybe I need to be a Republican-basher?
I don't know.
All I DO know is that as soon as I heard about this story and who said it, I immediately went "oh shit...here we go...gonna get ugly and out-of-hand REALLY fast..."
Here's the real, absolute thing (forget what you think you know or what you THINK I'm doing or supporting). If I AM supporting this kind of stuff, better not tell my best friend. She and her "roommate" might get mad at me.
All I DO know is that as soon as I heard about this story and who said it, I immediately went "oh shit...here we go...gonna get ugly and out-of-hand REALLY fast..."
I had a more pessimistic view because I knew that people view gay-bashing in a different light than racist comments.
Nothing good will come from this.
Santorum will not step down.
I'll have to give my Senator a protest or two the next time he comes into town.
He's a theocratical radical. The Sullivan article went into that- (Sullivan who is a CONSERVATIVE)
You mean I add no IDEAS that could defend Mr. Santorum. Well if you're looking for that I'd advise you to visit one of the extreme right forums on the internet. There you will find ALL SORTS of justification for crazy acts.
You sympathize with Abortion Terrorists, remember?
Look, I often disagree with trumpetman but...come on....seriously...he has a point. You are on of the easiest people here to parody because you are so predictable. You may not like that but it's true. Now, for a stunning rendition of the meow mix song:
I had a more pessimistic view because I knew that people view gay-bashing in a different light than racist comments.
Nothing good will come from this.
Santorum will not step down.
I'll have to give my Senator a protest or two the next time he comes into town.
WHY THE HELL DOES SANTORUM HAVE TO STEP DOWN BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT VIEW THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE? I find his comments repugnant but in an alleged Republic where we have this alleged Free Speech, the people that whine about equal rights the most (re: YOU) are the first in line to want to take away someone's job whenever they say anything YOU DISAGREE WITH.
I SHALL DIVIDE THE PIE IN TWO...AND EACH...SHALL RECEIVE...DEATH!!! I'll eat the pie.
Then you're talking about my views being absolute, when they apply only to Santorum's comments.
All the while, you bitch and moan about no one supporting your nowhere near pro-homosexual cause.
So it doesn't quite work when you call MY views simplistic.
Well I'll leave this as my last comment on the matter, because hey real life calls.
I want you to predict the future....what I was doing is showing the lack of validness concerning your convoluted question. As I stated before I pretty much consider this to be incomprehensible, but whatever...
Quote:
"How do Bush's remarks (as spoken to us by ari fleischer), which support Sen. Santourum, NOT condemn homosexuals when Santourum's remarks lend themselves to CRIMINALIZING consensual gay sex?
I addressed that Santorums remarks do not criminalize gay sex. Rather it was already illegal and he was commenting on a pending case. You wanted to ignore that so... it is hard to deal with the rest of the comment.
You want me to show how action (A) does not do something because action (B) lends itself to something bad when misconstrued.
Bush's remarks don't condemn homosexuals because his statement doesn't address homosexuals. Since the majority of us are not paranoid-delusionals we don't have a grand conspiracy theory in which code-talk can prove something or not prove something.
Bush expressed support for Santorum, period. Santorum commented on what a case would legalize and keep illegal, period.
The connecting the dots conspiracy part. Well that is in your head Shawn and I can't prove something to you that is in your head. Perhaps Pfflam could help you with the philosophy part.
I spoke about your views being absolute when you brought up another thread regarding abortion. However if you want to admit (as you did) that your views regarding Santorum are absolute, then I am more than willing to let you show your limited and extreme thinking there as well.
As for people supporting my cause, it isn't my cause. My state (California) is very progressive in this matter. He is your senator which would reflect that your view in the minority view even within your own state. In case you haven't been bright enough to realize it, not supporting every word you type does not equal hating that cause.
Does the fact that your wonderful Dean supports only civil unions and not marriage for homosexuals mean he is a homophobe? If I declare I support marriage for homosexuals, does that give me the right to label him as one.
Why don't you, considering Dean doesn't support homosexual marriage, prove to me he isn't a homophobe. He obviously doesn't want gays treated as equals and in fact set up that "straw man" of a civil union ceremony to distract from the real issue of gay marriage and equal gay rights.
See Shawn, I can explain both sides of an issue because my thinking isn't limited to name calling and mindless, paranoid assertions that you ask others to prove or disprove for you.
And you want to be a lawyer? I feel for your clients someday. Their money will not be well spent.
Look, I often disagree with trumpetman but...come on....seriously...he has a point. You are on of the easiest people here to parody because you are so predictable. You may not like that but it's true. Now, for a stunning rendition of the meow mix song:
Well I'll leave this as my last comment on the matter, because hey real life calls.
I want you to predict the future....what I was doing is showing the lack of validness concerning your convoluted question. As I stated before I pretty much consider this to be incomprehensible, but whatever...
I addressed that Santorums remarks do not criminalize gay sex. Rather it was already illegal and he was commenting on a pending case. You wanted to ignore that so... it is hard to deal with the rest of the comment.
You want me to show how action (A) does not do something because action (B) lends itself to something bad when misconstrued.
Bush's remarks don't condemn homosexuals because his statement doesn't address homosexuals. Since the majority of us are not paranoid-delusionals we don't have a grand conspiracy theory in which code-talk can prove something or not prove something.
Bush expressed support for Santorum, period. Santorum commented on what a case would legalize and keep illegal, period.
The connecting the dots conspiracy part. Well that is in your head Shawn and I can't prove something to you that is in your head. Perhaps Pfflam could help you with the philosophy part.
I spoke about your views being absolute when you brought up another thread regarding abortion. However if you want to admit (as you did) that your views regarding Santorum are absolute, then I am more than willing to let you show your limited and extreme thinking there as well.
As for people supporting my cause, it isn't my cause. My state (California) is very progressive in this matter. He is your senator which would reflect that your view in the minority view even within your own state. In case you haven't been bright enough to realize it, not supporting every word you type does not equal hating that cause.
Does the fact that your wonderful Dean supports only civil unions and not marriage for homosexuals mean he is a homophobe? If I declare I support marriage for homosexuals, does that give me the right to label him as one.
Why don't you, considering Dean doesn't support homosexual marriage, prove to me he isn't a homophobe. He obviously doesn't want gays treated as equals and in fact set up that "straw man" of a civil union ceremony to distract from the real issue of gay marriage and equal gay rights.
See Shawn, I can explain both sides of an issue because my thinking isn't limited to name calling and mindless, paranoid assertions that you ask others to prove or disprove for you.
And you want to be a lawyer? I feel for your clients someday. Their money will not be well spent.
Nick
I really don't know where to begin considering:
Your selective recalling of arguments presented in the thread
Your use of logical fallacies while addressing points long after you should have addressed them.
Your refusal to admit to blatant name-calling throughout the thread
Don't ever instant message me again. I don't want any contact from you. You don't resort to dissing my career prospects just because you disagree with me. You know nothing about me.
I believe in homosexual marriage and equal pay for equal work. You're just a pussy because you want to silence anyone that disagrees with you.
I think that's great.
But I don't support silencing anyone.
I support Santorum's right to say whatever he wants, but I think his remarks should be reason for him to step down from his leadership position. I'm not alone on this one.
I support Santorum's right to say whatever he wants, but I think his remarks should be reason for him to step down from his leadership position. I'm not alone on this one.
You also support saying one thing and doing another.
YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU WANT BUT IF I DON'T LIKE IT YOU MUST LOSE YOUR JOB!
I support Santorum's right to say whatever he wants, but I think his remarks should be reason for him to step down from his leadership position. I'm not alone on this one.
so to tie this in to another thread, could i say i support the Dixie Chick's right to say what they want about the president, but that they should step down as country singers and defacto role models because i disagree with what they said?
come on, that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard.
if you don't like what he said, vote him out.
before that though, i suggest you learn the difference between factual statements regarding case law and value statements about morality.
if you really are working to be a lawyer you're going to need to learn two things.
1. stop taking an emotional stance on arguments. it works on "The Practice", it doesn't work in real life. reasoning and logic are your only recourse.
2. you need to learn to at least acknowledge validity in another viewpoint. keeping yourself hogtied to a mindset would cripple you in any trial setinng, and keep you from finding the case law you need to prove the other side wrong. if you can't understand what someone else is saying, you'll have no rebuttal.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Well you see Shawn, I have to comment on what you add to the discussion. Since you add no IDEAS, just name calling and headlines, that is what I comment on. When you care to post something else, I will gladly comment on something else.
Nick
He's a theocratical radical. The Sullivan article went into that- (Sullivan who is a CONSERVATIVE)
You mean I add no IDEAS that could defend Mr. Santorum. Well if you're looking for that I'd advise you to visit one of the extreme right forums on the internet. There you will find ALL SORTS of justification for crazy acts.
You sympathize with Abortion Terrorists, remember?
Originally posted by BRussell
Two points:
1. It's not necessarily true that making one of those legal would make the others legal too. The case would certainly be decided on a much narrower basis than "if gay sex is OK, then anything goes! Yippeee!" In addition, this Texas case to which Santorum was referring will probably not be decided on a privacy basis but on an equal protection basis (because it outlaws gays from putting their sex organs in mouths or anuses while not outlawing straights from doing the same thing).
2. There is a long-standing tradition among gay-bashers to compare homosexuality to lots of really bad things like incest, pedophilia, and bestiality. I think everyone knows that, and it's pretty clear to me that he was just following in that tradition.
Oh, something else: although Santorum's comments will of course play well with certain segments of the population, there's a good chunk of moderate voters, the soccer moms and other swing voters, who will be turned off by it. Republicans are doing a great job of alienating those types that they'll want so much in about a year. It's Bush's whole "compassionate conservative" strategy.
You could be correct that the case will be decided on the equal protection basis but I seriously doubt that would be considered a victory at all. I posted the link from LAMDA that showed the state of sodomy laws in various states. Texas would just do what other states have done and that is declare all sodomy to be illegal instead of just same sex sodomy.
As for the tradition of comparing those acts, perhaps the tradition is people who make their living off of being "activists" using slippery slope reasoning to declare people intolerant when they have done nothing wrong. That is certainly the case here. I would declare that more of a tradition than what you have stated.
Likewise the homosexual community simply won't admit that it does what alot of us "heteros" have done which is have sex before the age of consent. We have no doubt that there are some 25 years old men out there attemping to copulate with 13-15 year old girls. If you suggest the same could possibly occur with two men, you are intolerant.
The thing is that many men in the homosexual community, when speaking about their first encounters say it was a younger/older combination. They should just work on growing understanding and knowledge in this area. It could be for a number reasons but the age issues with homosexuality are much less conventional. It could be because some of them try to live as heterosexuals first. It could be because they are discovering they are bisexual, lots of issues but by being unwilling to admit that they experiment early in life with sex like most of us do, they are setting themselves up for these issues.
They are part of the problem promoting this ignorance and they help to allow it to continue.
As for the vast uninformed middleground, the soccer moms and so forth. I seriously doubt this issue (Santorum comments on case) will even be around by the next election. However suppose it is, these folks barely pay attention to day to day politics. There seem to be no subtlety concerning messages around election time. Democrats will want this issue to disappear because it is very hard to get across to the general public the difference betwee supporting say civil unions and not have someone slippery slope you into saying you support gay marriage. Especially when there will be some elements of the party declaring they do support gay marriage.
These soccer moms and said types have polled as very unsupportive of gay marriage even while being tolerant on homosexual acts and relations. So I think it would be a non-starter for them and just distract from their economy message.
Do you really think they want an election scenario where Bush is talking about defending against terrorism and the economy and Dems are trying to explain how they support civil unions but not marriage.
I think Repubilcans would be salavating at such a scenario.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
He's a theocratical radical. The Sullivan article went into that- (Sullivan who is a CONSERVATIVE)
You mean I add no IDEAS that could defend Mr. Santorum. Well if you're looking for that I'd advise you to visit one of the extreme right forums on the internet. There you will find ALL SORTS of justification for crazy acts.
You sympathize with Abortion Terrorists, remember?
Go get some sun, you've been staring at that screen to long.
You can try to link me to whoever you want. Your inability to discuss the intricacies of ideas means you limit yourself to large broad, unsupportable, extreme alternatives. If you want to militantly declare all abortion wrong because you cannot discuss differences in support and morality along the time frame of a pregnancy, then that if fine. Revel in your own limits.
See in the world of ideas you are not the sole arbiter. So I am glad to let you type foolishly and reveal your own limitations.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
you...cannot...defend...gay-bashing!
No...one...is!
Originally posted by pscates
No...one...is!
Most of us here (except you two) would submit that Santorum's comments lend themselves to it.
it's.....way.....more......fun.....to......type... ..like......this.....and.....sound....all.....cool ......
Originally posted by trumptman
Go get some sun, you've been staring at that screen to long.
You can try to link me to whoever you want. Your inability to discuss the intricacies of ideas means you limit yourself to large broad, unsupportable, extreme alternatives. If you want to militantly declare all abortion wrong because you cannot discuss differences in support and morality along the time frame of a pregnancy, then that if fine. Revel in your own limits.
See in the world of ideas you are not the sole arbiter. So I am glad to let you type foolishly and reveal your own limitations.
Nick
You provide the worst examples.
First you want me to predict the future.
Then you're talking about my views being absolute, when they apply only to Santorum's comments.
All the while, you bitch and moan about no one supporting your nowhere near pro-homosexual cause.
So it doesn't quite work when you call MY views simplistic.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Most of us here (except you two) would submit that Santorum's comments lend themselves to it.
Everyone except "us two"? Sure about that? I'll roleplay as giant for a moment and ask for sources, links and suggest you conduct a study to make sure...otherwise, it's just "opinion".
Hey, don't yell at me.
I don't know about Santorum's comments. I think to people with a certain political mindset and worldview, maybe they do. He is, after all, a Republican. And we all know that they'll get far less leeway on comments regarding homosexuality and race. I could see it being divided along belief lines. I could also see a prominent, up-and-coming Democrat saying the same thing and be let off a tad easier (and you know it).
I also tend to fall toward the "don't wake up every morning, looking - and expecting - to be offended or feel the need to fight injustice, Republicans and evil corporations on every level" side of life, so, no, I probably - no, make that definitely - don't get all of this.
Maybe I need to be gay? Maybe I need to have thinner skin? Maybe I need to be a Republican-basher?
I don't know.
All I DO know is that as soon as I heard about this story and who said it, I immediately went "oh shit...here we go...gonna get ugly and out-of-hand REALLY fast..."
Here's the real, absolute thing (forget what you think you know or what you THINK I'm doing or supporting). If I AM supporting this kind of stuff, better not tell my best friend. She and her "roommate" might get mad at me.
Originally posted by pscates
All I DO know is that as soon as I heard about this story and who said it, I immediately went "oh shit...here we go...gonna get ugly and out-of-hand REALLY fast..."
I had a more pessimistic view because I knew that people view gay-bashing in a different light than racist comments.
Nothing good will come from this.
Santorum will not step down.
I'll have to give my Senator a protest or two the next time he comes into town.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
He's a theocratical radical. The Sullivan article went into that- (Sullivan who is a CONSERVATIVE)
You mean I add no IDEAS that could defend Mr. Santorum. Well if you're looking for that I'd advise you to visit one of the extreme right forums on the internet. There you will find ALL SORTS of justification for crazy acts.
You sympathize with Abortion Terrorists, remember?
Look, I often disagree with trumpetman but...come on....seriously...he has a point. You are on of the easiest people here to parody because you are so predictable. You may not like that but it's true. Now, for a stunning rendition of the meow mix song:
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow....
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I had a more pessimistic view because I knew that people view gay-bashing in a different light than racist comments.
Nothing good will come from this.
Santorum will not step down.
I'll have to give my Senator a protest or two the next time he comes into town.
WHY THE HELL DOES SANTORUM HAVE TO STEP DOWN BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT VIEW THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE? I find his comments repugnant but in an alleged Republic where we have this alleged Free Speech, the people that whine about equal rights the most (re: YOU) are the first in line to want to take away someone's job whenever they say anything YOU DISAGREE WITH.
I SHALL DIVIDE THE PIE IN TWO...AND EACH...SHALL RECEIVE...DEATH!!! I'll eat the pie.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
You provide the worst examples.
First you want me to predict the future.
Then you're talking about my views being absolute, when they apply only to Santorum's comments.
All the while, you bitch and moan about no one supporting your nowhere near pro-homosexual cause.
So it doesn't quite work when you call MY views simplistic.
Well I'll leave this as my last comment on the matter, because hey real life calls.
I want you to predict the future....what I was doing is showing the lack of validness concerning your convoluted question. As I stated before I pretty much consider this to be incomprehensible, but whatever...
"How do Bush's remarks (as spoken to us by ari fleischer), which support Sen. Santourum, NOT condemn homosexuals when Santourum's remarks lend themselves to CRIMINALIZING consensual gay sex?
I addressed that Santorums remarks do not criminalize gay sex. Rather it was already illegal and he was commenting on a pending case. You wanted to ignore that so... it is hard to deal with the rest of the comment.
You want me to show how action (A) does not do something because action (B) lends itself to something bad when misconstrued.
Bush's remarks don't condemn homosexuals because his statement doesn't address homosexuals. Since the majority of us are not paranoid-delusionals we don't have a grand conspiracy theory in which code-talk can prove something or not prove something.
Bush expressed support for Santorum, period. Santorum commented on what a case would legalize and keep illegal, period.
The connecting the dots conspiracy part. Well that is in your head Shawn and I can't prove something to you that is in your head. Perhaps Pfflam could help you with the philosophy part.
I spoke about your views being absolute when you brought up another thread regarding abortion. However if you want to admit (as you did) that your views regarding Santorum are absolute, then I am more than willing to let you show your limited and extreme thinking there as well.
As for people supporting my cause, it isn't my cause. My state (California) is very progressive in this matter. He is your senator which would reflect that your view in the minority view even within your own state. In case you haven't been bright enough to realize it, not supporting every word you type does not equal hating that cause.
Does the fact that your wonderful Dean supports only civil unions and not marriage for homosexuals mean he is a homophobe? If I declare I support marriage for homosexuals, does that give me the right to label him as one.
Why don't you, considering Dean doesn't support homosexual marriage, prove to me he isn't a homophobe. He obviously doesn't want gays treated as equals and in fact set up that "straw man" of a civil union ceremony to distract from the real issue of gay marriage and equal gay rights.
See Shawn, I can explain both sides of an issue because my thinking isn't limited to name calling and mindless, paranoid assertions that you ask others to prove or disprove for you.
And you want to be a lawyer? I feel for your clients someday. Their money will not be well spent.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
Look, I often disagree with trumpetman but...come on....seriously...he has a point. You are on of the easiest people here to parody because you are so predictable. You may not like that but it's true. Now, for a stunning rendition of the meow mix song:
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow....
That doesn't make my liberal views "simplistic," it makes them consistent And I detest this culture that appreciates BR's NEO MACHO crap.
Women's Rights?
Pussy.
Gay Rights?
Pussy.
That's pretty simplistic, BR.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
That doesn't make my liberal views "simplistic," it makes them consistent And I detest this culture that appreciates BR's NEO MACHO crap.
Women's Rights?
Pussy.
Gay Rights?
Pussy.
That's pretty simplistic, BR.
I believe in homosexual marriage and equal pay for equal work. You're just a pussy because you want to silence anyone that disagrees with you.
Originally posted by trumptman
Well I'll leave this as my last comment on the matter, because hey real life calls.
I want you to predict the future....what I was doing is showing the lack of validness concerning your convoluted question. As I stated before I pretty much consider this to be incomprehensible, but whatever...
I addressed that Santorums remarks do not criminalize gay sex. Rather it was already illegal and he was commenting on a pending case. You wanted to ignore that so... it is hard to deal with the rest of the comment.
You want me to show how action (A) does not do something because action (B) lends itself to something bad when misconstrued.
Bush's remarks don't condemn homosexuals because his statement doesn't address homosexuals. Since the majority of us are not paranoid-delusionals we don't have a grand conspiracy theory in which code-talk can prove something or not prove something.
Bush expressed support for Santorum, period. Santorum commented on what a case would legalize and keep illegal, period.
The connecting the dots conspiracy part. Well that is in your head Shawn and I can't prove something to you that is in your head. Perhaps Pfflam could help you with the philosophy part.
I spoke about your views being absolute when you brought up another thread regarding abortion. However if you want to admit (as you did) that your views regarding Santorum are absolute, then I am more than willing to let you show your limited and extreme thinking there as well.
As for people supporting my cause, it isn't my cause. My state (California) is very progressive in this matter. He is your senator which would reflect that your view in the minority view even within your own state. In case you haven't been bright enough to realize it, not supporting every word you type does not equal hating that cause.
Does the fact that your wonderful Dean supports only civil unions and not marriage for homosexuals mean he is a homophobe? If I declare I support marriage for homosexuals, does that give me the right to label him as one.
Why don't you, considering Dean doesn't support homosexual marriage, prove to me he isn't a homophobe. He obviously doesn't want gays treated as equals and in fact set up that "straw man" of a civil union ceremony to distract from the real issue of gay marriage and equal gay rights.
See Shawn, I can explain both sides of an issue because my thinking isn't limited to name calling and mindless, paranoid assertions that you ask others to prove or disprove for you.
And you want to be a lawyer? I feel for your clients someday. Their money will not be well spent.
Nick
I really don't know where to begin considering:
- Your selective recalling of arguments presented in the thread
- Your use of logical fallacies while addressing points long after you should have addressed them.
- Your refusal to admit to blatant name-calling throughout the thread
Don't ever instant message me again. I don't want any contact from you. You don't resort to dissing my career prospects just because you disagree with me. You know nothing about me.That was low.
Originally posted by BR
I believe in homosexual marriage and equal pay for equal work. You're just a pussy because you want to silence anyone that disagrees with you.
I think that's great.
But I don't support silencing anyone.
I support Santorum's right to say whatever he wants, but I think his remarks should be reason for him to step down from his leadership position. I'm not alone on this one.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I think that's great.
But I don't support silencing anyone.
I support Santorum's right to say whatever he wants, but I think his remarks should be reason for him to step down from his leadership position. I'm not alone on this one.
You also support saying one thing and doing another.
YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU WANT BUT IF I DON'T LIKE IT YOU MUST LOSE YOUR JOB!
Originally posted by BR
You also support saying one thing and doing another.
YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU WANT BUT IF I DON'T LIKE IT YOU MUST LOSE YOUR JOB!
So everyone advocating for Santorum to step down from his post thinks like that?
But I don't support silencing anyone.
I support Santorum's right to say whatever he wants, but I think his remarks should be reason for him to step down from his leadership position. I'm not alone on this one.
so to tie this in to another thread, could i say i support the Dixie Chick's right to say what they want about the president, but that they should step down as country singers and defacto role models because i disagree with what they said?
come on, that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard.
if you don't like what he said, vote him out.
before that though, i suggest you learn the difference between factual statements regarding case law and value statements about morality.
if you really are working to be a lawyer you're going to need to learn two things.
1. stop taking an emotional stance on arguments. it works on "The Practice", it doesn't work in real life. reasoning and logic are your only recourse.
2. you need to learn to at least acknowledge validity in another viewpoint. keeping yourself hogtied to a mindset would cripple you in any trial setinng, and keep you from finding the case law you need to prove the other side wrong. if you can't understand what someone else is saying, you'll have no rebuttal.