Mesquite, you are just too much like too many liberals who refuse to see anything other than what they want to see and will ignore just about anything in order to see it and will proof text just about anything to pretend you're right. So, you're all wet. Probably because you've been doing that thing up a rope you suggested.
0 Replies
Advocate
1
Reply
Sun 3 Sep, 2006 03:11 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well 'sick' is a bit extreme, but be careful. You'll be accused of using cliches. I honestly thought 'dismantling the traditional family' was an original with me, but apparently it is a cliche. Live and learn. That is unfortunate though to be unable to use a term that describes what one wishes to say in a few words. The alternative is a lot of pendantic expounding and posturing. And that is so unfun to read. Oh well.
Are you not saying it here?
0 Replies
Foxfyre
1
Reply
Sun 3 Sep, 2006 03:13 pm
Sure I used the term 'dismantleing the traditional family" though I can't use it anymore because it offends Blatham's literary sensibilities.
But it had nothing to do with denying rights to gays.
0 Replies
mesquite
1
Reply
Sun 3 Sep, 2006 05:14 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Mesquite, you are just too much like too many liberals who refuse to see anything other than what they want to see and will ignore just about anything in order to see it and will proof text just about anything to pretend you're right. So, you're all wet. Probably because you've been doing that thing up a rope you suggested.
Anything specific that you would like to comment on Foxfyre, or just more general p' & m'ing?
You evidently are so used to taking positions on nothing more than a whim that you seem to become all flustered when asked for a little supporting info.
0 Replies
mesquite
1
Reply
Sun 3 Sep, 2006 10:08 pm
BernardR wrote:
Anyone who attempts to say that the affective systems of the average homosexual is QUALITATIVELY AND QUANTITATIIVELY EQUAL to a woman's system knows nothing about biology and psychology.
Pssst! BernardR, not all homosexual couples are male. I guess you are saying that lesbian couples should get extra credits.
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Sun 3 Sep, 2006 10:48 pm
0 Replies
Foxfyre
1
Reply
Mon 4 Sep, 2006 07:06 am
Mesquite writes
Quote:
You evidently are so used to taking positions on nothing more than a whim that you seem to become all flustered when asked for a little supporting info.
No, I don't base any firmly held opinions on whims and I can and do usually provide supporting information for the deeply held convictions I hold. And I am not so obsessed with my hatred for religion and/or conservative views that I need to follow people around from thread to thread just to attack them for the views they hold and attempt to discredit them. When I join a thread it is specifically to participate in the discussion and share points of view. But that's just me.
And you gotta be you.
0 Replies
blatham
1
Reply
Mon 4 Sep, 2006 08:27 am
(puff of smoke rises from the grassy knoll)
0 Replies
Foxfyre
1
Reply
Mon 4 Sep, 2006 09:50 am
But of course, that wouldn't be considered a cliche in lieu of serious debate.
0 Replies
Advocate
1
Reply
Mon 4 Sep, 2006 09:59 am
Bernard quotes Jeff Gannon, male prostitute and ace Republican reporter. We can certain assign great credence to his writings.
0 Replies
Foxfyre
1
Reply
Mon 4 Sep, 2006 10:08 am
Advocate wrote:
Bernard quotes Jeff Gannon, male prostitute and ace Republican reporter. We can certain assign great credence to his writings.
I agree that Gannon/Guckert is not a credible source; he certainly wasn't an ace reporter. The evidence is still out, however, whether he faked his credentials for his own purposes (unlikely) or whether he was employed by an overly zealous GOP staffer (which would be really stupid) or whether he was planted by an overly zealous DEM staffer so they could accuse the GOP of planting him (which would be really risky).
Sometimes the plots in these things get really thick.
0 Replies
Advocate
1
Reply
Mon 4 Sep, 2006 01:27 pm
My theory, which has no basis in fact, is that Gannon had a thing going with Rove. He acted as a straight man for the press secretary, and he had almost unfettered access to the White House. Truly amazing!
0 Replies
Foxfyre
1
Reply
Mon 4 Sep, 2006 01:34 pm
Advocate wrote:
My theory, which has no basis in fact, is that Gannon had a thing going with Rove. He acted as a straight man for the press secretary, and he had almost unfettered access to the White House. Truly amazing!
I know it has been portrayed that way by some of the fringe media, but I don't believe you can make a case for it being that way. Both Rove and Guckert denied any connection and I don't think anybody was able to make one. Even the Democrats only asked for an investigation into how he was able to circumvent security and get press credentials and they didn't push that very hard, so I have to believe there just wasn't much if anything there.
0 Replies
mesquite
1
Reply
Mon 4 Sep, 2006 01:52 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Mesquite writes
Quote:
You evidently are so used to taking positions on nothing more than a whim that you seem to become all flustered when asked for a little supporting info.
No, I don't base any firmly held opinions on whims and I can and do usually provide supporting information for the deeply held convictions I hold. And I am not so obsessed with my hatred for religion and/or conservative views that I need to follow people around from thread to thread just to attack them for the views they hold and attempt to discredit them. When I join a thread it is specifically to participate in the discussion and share points of view. But that's just me.
And you gotta be you.
The above post is a perfect example of your unsupportable opinions based on nothing more than a whim. The idea of me following you around from thread to thread is laughable. You should be so honored. I do a lot more reading than I do posting, and responses you get from me are the result of your being in the threads that I am following and the abrasive manner of your posting which often begs for a response, nothing more.
If you think you can support that absurd accusation, bring it on. I will be happy to show you the error of your whimsical opinion.
0 Replies
Foxfyre
1
Reply
Mon 4 Sep, 2006 01:58 pm
Hmmm Mesquite. I didn't, but it's funny that you put yourself into that post. Doesn't that tell you anything?
If you don't like the way I post don't read my posts. And if you think they're abrasive, then fine, just don't respond to them. And we won't have any probems whatsoever. I can assure you I won't be following YOU around on any threads criticizing everything you post. But then I never have.
At least Blatham was honest enough to say that is exactly what he was doing since I am so dangerous, it is his obligation to be sure that I am exposed.
I'm just wondering when I obtained all this power. It's pretty exciting.
0 Replies
mesquite
1
Reply
Mon 4 Sep, 2006 02:22 pm
Imagine that. Thinking that a post addressed to me, was directed at me.
And blathams response to that post by you was
blatham wrote:
(puff of smoke rises from the grassy knoll)
Was that over your head?
Baltham said they you were dangerous and needed to be exposed
Sounds like another of your whimsies. Can you provide a reference?
0 Replies
Foxfyre
1
Reply
Mon 4 Sep, 2006 05:26 pm
Naw, he will either own up to it or he won't. I don't feel like going back through a lot of pages to find it. He's said it a couple of times though.
0 Replies
mesquite
1
Reply
Mon 4 Sep, 2006 07:35 pm
This is probably the post you are referring to, and it was the theocratic notions of the sort you have been defending that blatham characterized as a danger, not you as an individual. Let's give this post a well deserved encore
blatham wrote:
foxfyre said
Quote:
But did any of them [aquinas, augustine, etc] prove their case other than arguing it?
Prove? "Proving" is not the province of theology. Proof for heaven? Proof for jesus as son of god? Proof for "let he who has no sin throw the first stone"? There are no proofs here which are not circular... the proof for the inerrancy of the bible can be drawn from the bible which is inerrant.
It seems you are quite unaware of the degree to which you are not available for either careful discussion nor for learning. That presents no real problem for me. Other than that it is depressing to watch and because there is already more than enough reason to be cynical regarding the rationality of homo sapiens.
But theocratic notions of the sort you have been defending present a danger to everyone else's liberty, so many of us here will keep pummeling you every time you voice them.
That one is along the same vein but there have been a couple of others as well. The others were even more ridiculous than this one, but I'm not at all surprised that you approve of it. I would guess that most left wing wacko judgmental I'm-better read/superior/smarter/more informed-than-you types would.
