19
   

Harry Reid: racist or political realist?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 02:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oh, so that's why LIBERALS are the ones who fight to keep others from enjoying the same rights and opportunities as you do; that's why we argue against gay marriage, for example. Because we view any expansion of rights of others as hurting us.

Wait a minute, that's Conservatives!

That doesn't seem to square with your theory, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

Anyone and everyone are free to marry. You are mixing rights with something else, such as the definition of marriage, wherein you may advocate marriage to someone other than men with women or vice versa, or to marry something, that have never been commonly allowed by law by virtually any society on the face of the earth since the dawn of time. Yes, I meant to say "marry something," as I think I heard recently that some people actually now want to marry their dog or their car or other things, cyclops, I would need to research that but I think that was the news.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 02:24 pm
@okie,
Well, Grasshopper, do you now possess the pebble?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 04:07 pm
@okie,
Quote:
Anyone and everyone are free to marry. You are mixing rights with something else, such as the definition of marriage, wherein you may advocate marriage to someone other than men with women or vice versa, or to marry something, that have never been commonly allowed by law by virtually any society on the face of the earth since the dawn of time. Yes, I meant to say "marry something," as I think I heard recently that some people actually now want to marry their dog or their car or other things, cyclops, I would need to research that but I think that was the news.


This is a ridiculous dodge. You know as well as I do that it is unreasonable to ask someone to marry someone that they are not attracted to, yet you state that gays are 'free to marry.' What an insulting attitude, you might as well come out and say 'I don't give a **** about their happiness at all.'

The response that you've given is entirely consistent with what I said above: you aren't really for maximum freedom for everyone, you are for freedom for YOU and people like YOU; and you wonder why the Republican party does poorly amongst minorities... you show no sensitivity to their concerns and then insult them by comparing their desire for happiness to people who want to marry animals.

I really doubt you could have provided a better example of my point if you had tried, and I thank you for doing so.

Cycloptichorn
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 04:19 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Speaking of dodges - why do you persist in arguing with Okie (who never represented he's a lawyer) and not examine instead WHY Olson and Boies refuse to take the tack you're suggesting and instead pick a much more indirect approach? Details were posted right here:
http://able2know.org/topic/138900-10#post-3876610
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 04:34 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
High Seas had the temerity to write: Speaking of dodges


Unbelievable! Brass balls from the queen of dodges.

This is precisely the kind of thing that makes you such an untrustworthy person, High Seas.

0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 04:40 pm
@High Seas,
P.S. The "targeted ads" for homosexual marriage are, in fact, extremely effective - though mostly in generating an "ICK" response:
http://www.newyorker.com/images/2010/01/18/p465/100118_r19230_p465.jpg
Quote:
....the spot was tested by H.C.D., a New Jersey-based advertising-research firm, and Republicans were surprisingly receptive: fifty-five per cent of them called the ad “effective,” even though only twenty-nine per cent of them supported gay marriage. Glenn Kessler, the head of research for H.C.D., told me, “That suggests a useful dissonance.”

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa_fact_talbot?currentPage=all#ixzz0cokSsZoM
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 04:49 pm
@High Seas,
Your quote below the picture is contradicting your summary above the picture. One of the two must be mistaken.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 04:53 pm
@Thomas,
I feel another dodge comin' on.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 07:59 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
P.S. The "targeted ads" for homosexual marriage are, in fact, extremely effective - though mostly in generating an "ICK" response:


So, specifically - what about that or other ads generates an 'ick' response from you? I'd love to know.

Cycloptichorn
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 08:34 pm
@High Seas,
Dollars to donuts, if segregation was again made public policy in the USA, High Seas would be out in front painting signs to hang over all the separate but equal facilities.

She wouldn't hang them, too much 'ick' factor for her.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 11:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The response that you've given is entirely consistent with what I said above: you aren't really for maximum freedom for everyone, you are for freedom for YOU and people like YOU; and you wonder why the Republican party does poorly amongst minorities... you show no sensitivity to their concerns and then insult them by comparing their desire for happiness to people who want to marry animals.

I really doubt you could have provided a better example of my point if you had tried, and I thank you for doing so.

Cycloptichorn

Oh, I apologize, I would not want anyone to be unhappy, so let us just eliminate all laws, how about that? Except laws against insensitivity. Anyone that is insensitive gets the death penalty.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 02:36 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
P.S. The "targeted ads" for homosexual marriage are, in fact, extremely effective - though mostly in generating an "ICK" response:


So, specifically - what about that or other ads generates an 'ick' response from you? I'd love to know.

Cycloptichorn

It's not my term, Cycl, it was created by some homosexual advocates shortly after the manner of HIV-AIDS transmission was determined:
Quote:
...One veteran gay activist could sense the change in the attitudes of the justices. Kevin Cathcart, executive director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has been part of a small but determined circle of lawyers plotting gay-rights strategy since 1984. In the past, he had to deal with what he called the "ick factor"...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/57774/page/2
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 02:37 pm
@Thomas,
Hardly - both post and quote claim the ads are extremely effective. No contradiction of any kind.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 03:33 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
High Seas wrote: P.S. The "targeted ads" for homosexual marriage are, in fact, extremely effective - though mostly in generating an "ICK" response:


Quote:
Hardly - both post and quote claim the ads are extremely effective. No contradiction of any kind.


You are the most confused, the most prone to lying person I have ever encountered, High Seas. And you don't make any real attempts to hide it or you're that stupid/pathological that you don't even realize you're doing it.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 09:28:09