Sigh, and here I just looked up myself
Though I found it here:
http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=784188335665+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Fox, you are completely blown on this issue. You may want to admit that you were wrong and withdraw from the field, or simply withdraw from the field; anything else is just going to drag this down into another instance of 'liberal posters attacking' you.
Quote:And I posted your exact quote and gave you an opportunity to qualify it. You didn't. You just denied that you said it.
And I posted your exact quotes as well, which you also failed to qualify. Enough arguing about stupid sh*t like this, Fox, really.
Cycloptichorn
Setanta wrote:You are correct, Duck . . . i read the tag incorrectly, but the link is correct, as is the information which i copied from the linked page.
You are correct, Duck . . . and i'm gonna get you for it . . .
Oh, sorry, I only said that because I couldn't find it when I searched the CR and I thought you were pointing to the same thing that I found, which didn't have his remarks in it. Good lookin' out, Set.
Nevertheless, it feels good to be correct. Neener neener.
Oh, and for the record, I'm proud that my family includes homosexuals and those who have been divorced. One of my aunts was smart enough to realize that beaten and bloody is a poor way to go through life, and good for her.
I'm proud that our love is big enough to accept anybody in our family, regardless of their skin or creed or sexual orientation.
Cycloptichorn
Thomas wrote:McGentrix just beat me to posting the context Foxfyre required, thanks!
Now, Foxfyre let me ask you two questions:
(1) Which passages, if any, has Think Progress edited?
(2) How does the context of the quote bear on the quote itself, and on whether it is bigoted?
My own answers are (1) none, and (2) they sound more bigoted, not less, when read in context.
Bigoted? Huh. I thought the context added quite a bit to the single quote. It's amazing how different glasses allows people to see the same thing difeerently.
The context didn't do much to change my initial impression either.
Thomas said this on another thread.
Could apply here.
Thomas wrote:I am confident that one day, x will learn that making a mistake and not admitting it is only hurting yourself twice.
McGentrix wrote:Thomas wrote:McGentrix just beat me to posting the context Foxfyre required, thanks!
Now, Foxfyre let me ask you two questions:
(1) Which passages, if any, has Think Progress edited?
(2) How does the context of the quote bear on the quote itself, and on whether it is bigoted?
My own answers are (1) none, and (2) they sound more bigoted, not less, when read in context.
Bigoted? Huh. I thought the context added quite a bit to the single quote. It's amazing how different glasses allows people to see the same thing difeerently.
I think the full context neither confirms whether Inhofe is bigoted nor proves that he is not. The full context was within the scope of his debate on a specific subject and the comment was made within the scope of whether his life situation qualified him as an authority to debate it. As I speculated previously, I took it that he was admitting his life experience is different from others. His full argument was well done, however, and seems to be studiously ignored by any on the Left who are determined to make Inhofe a bigot. I also think the Quick Time piece is dishonest in not providing the qualifying statement(s).
I do. Link much appreciated, thanks!
Foxfyre wrote:His full argument was well done, however, and seems to be studiously ignored by any on the Left who are determined to make Inhofe a bigot. I also think the Quick Time piece is dishonest in not providing the qualifying statement(s).
Well, thanks for sharing your opinion, and it's good we have it on the record.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Here's the full quote:
Quote:{14:24:36} (MR. INHOFE) AS YOU SEE HERE, AND I THINK THIS IS MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT PROP WE’LL HAVE DURING THE ENTIRE DEBATE, MY WIFE AND I HAVE BEEN MARRIED 47 YEARS. WE HAVE 20 KIDS AND GRANDKIDS. I’M REALLY PROUD TO SAY THAT IN THE RECORDED HISTORY OF OUR FAMILY, WE’VE NEVER HAD A DIVORCE OR ANY KIND OF A HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. SO I THINK THAT MAYBE I’M THE WRONG ONE TO THE DOING THIS — TO BE DOING THIS SINCE I COME WITH SUCH A STRONG PREJUDICE FOR STRONG FAMILIES.
Cycloptichorn
RECORDED history? That's nice. What has gone unrecorded? What does he have hidden in his family closet?
ROFL
INHOFE. Strong Prejudice indeed!
212 pages of discussion, and not a single compelling argument based on logic has been forwarded as to why gays should not be allowed to marry.
We have seen religious based arguments, tradition based arguments, slippery slope arguments; but none that actually address why Gays have been relegated to second-class citizens in the minds of many posters here.
Noone wants to admit that they just don't like gay folks, that they are afraid of them, that they are disgusted by them, that they don't like seeing two men hold hands on the street because it challenges the way they think about things. Noone can show how their personal marriages or their children will be harmed by this. Noone has provided any well-constructed arguments whatsoever, other than 'it's against the bible' 'it's against tradition' 'it would lead to the moral decline of america,' etc.
Is the anti-gay marriage movement only a cover for homophobia? I believe that in part it is. There are probably quite a few traditionalists who just don't want to see things change in their lifetime, because change is scary and challenging to them. But, f*ck that! Change comes whether one likes it or not. Stagnation is bad for society. And, I might add, patently UnAmerican; this country has lead the world in accepting new values and new ideas. It is one of our strengths. Those who are against gay marriage, who can forward no arguments based upon logic against it, who cannot show how it harms society, and who only wish to hold America back from changing, are damaging our way of life far more than any supposed gay marriage could.
Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre wrote:McGentrix wrote:Thomas wrote:McGentrix just beat me to posting the context Foxfyre required, thanks!
Now, Foxfyre let me ask you two questions:
(1) Which passages, if any, has Think Progress edited?
(2) How does the context of the quote bear on the quote itself, and on whether it is bigoted?
My own answers are (1) none, and (2) they sound more bigoted, not less, when read in context.
Bigoted? Huh. I thought the context added quite a bit to the single quote. It's amazing how different glasses allows people to see the same thing difeerently.
I think the full context neither confirms whether Inhofe is bigoted nor proves that he is not. The full context was within the scope of his debate on a specific subject and the comment was made within the scope of whether his life situation qualified him as an authority to debate it. As I speculated previously, I took it that he was admitting his life experience is different from others. His full argument was well done, however, and seems to be studiously ignored by any on the Left who are determined to make Inhofe a bigot. I also think the Quick Time piece is dishonest in not providing the qualifying statement(s).
I don't expect you to take off your blinders. You routinely make similar statements and proclaim you're not bigoted either. His statements were, without doubt, the product of ignorance, bigotry, and prejudice. STRONG PREJUDICE.
Debra_Law wrote:Foxfyre wrote:McGentrix wrote:Thomas wrote:McGentrix just beat me to posting the context Foxfyre required, thanks!
Now, Foxfyre let me ask you two questions:
(1) Which passages, if any, has Think Progress edited?
(2) How does the context of the quote bear on the quote itself, and on whether it is bigoted?
My own answers are (1) none, and (2) they sound more bigoted, not less, when read in context.
Bigoted? Huh. I thought the context added quite a bit to the single quote. It's amazing how different glasses allows people to see the same thing difeerently.
I think the full context neither confirms whether Inhofe is bigoted nor proves that he is not. The full context was within the scope of his debate on a specific subject and the comment was made within the scope of whether his life situation qualified him as an authority to debate it. As I speculated previously, I took it that he was admitting his life experience is different from others. His full argument was well done, however, and seems to be studiously ignored by any on the Left who are determined to make Inhofe a bigot. I also think the Quick Time piece is dishonest in not providing the qualifying statement(s).
I don't expect you to take off your blinders. You routinely make similar statements and proclaim you're not bigoted either. His statements were, without doubt, the product of ignorance, bigotry, and prejudice. STRONG PREJUDICE.
In your opinion. Nothing more.
Cycloptichorn wrote: Stagnation is bad for society. And, I might add, patently UnAmerican; this country has lead the world in accepting new values and new ideas.
New ideas, definitely, but I don't believe you're right about new values. I have recently read two travel books by 19th century Americans reporting about extended stays in Germany. (They were Mark Twain and Amy Fay, a pianist from Boston.) In both books, I found it amazing how backward and just plain odd the Germans' views on politics society are -- and how modern and contemporary the Americans sound. Both Twain and Fay would sound perfectly normal in a political discussion today, which would be very unusual for any German who lived in the 1860s or so.
So your fundamental social values in America are remarkable for how little they have changed, not how much.
Inhofe "does not hire openly gay staffers "due to the possibility of a conflict of agenda" - so he just stays on his line. (
Source for the quote)
-------------
You're certainly correct here again, Thomas, with your above response.
Your thesis is flawed,
Thomas by the fact that it does not recognize the extent to which Mr. Clemens was ahead of his times. I recommend to you
The War Prayer (condemning the nation's rush into the Spanish War), and
To the Person Sitting in Darkness (condemning American behavior in the Philippines), and espcially i recommend
Christian Science. The latter was a diatribe against Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science--both Clemens' wife and daughter became devotees, and died in agony because they would not seek ordinary medical care. The book caused such a stir that it was withdrawn by the publisher, and was out of print in the United States for seventy years--in fact, it has never been copyright protected in the United States.
Not only was Mr. Clemens ahead of his time, it seems that much of the nation has never caught up to him.
Debra_Law wrote:Foxfyre wrote:McGentrix wrote:Thomas wrote:McGentrix just beat me to posting the context Foxfyre required, thanks!
Now, Foxfyre let me ask you two questions:
(1) Which passages, if any, has Think Progress edited?
(2) How does the context of the quote bear on the quote itself, and on whether it is bigoted?
My own answers are (1) none, and (2) they sound more bigoted, not less, when read in context.
Bigoted? Huh. I thought the context added quite a bit to the single quote. It's amazing how different glasses allows people to see the same thing difeerently.
I think the full context neither confirms whether Inhofe is bigoted nor proves that he is not. The full context was within the scope of his debate on a specific subject and the comment was made within the scope of whether his life situation qualified him as an authority to debate it. As I speculated previously, I took it that he was admitting his life experience is different from others. His full argument was well done, however, and seems to be studiously ignored by any on the Left who are determined to make Inhofe a bigot. I also think the Quick Time piece is dishonest in not providing the qualifying statement(s).
I don't expect you to take off your blinders. You routinely make similar statements and proclaim you're not bigoted either. His statements were, without doubt, the product of ignorance, bigotry, and prejudice. STRONG PREJUDICE.
I sure hope you don't argue your law cases with such certainty on so little evidence. Inhofe admits strong prejudice in favor of strong families. So do I for that matter. I don't think he admitted any other strong prejudice in that speech and any conclusions drawn re any bigotry is highly speculative. If he is to be damned for favoring strong families, I will be happy to share hell with him.
I am proud to say that their are no marriages to black people in my family's history.
