Jluy 4th Thread

[jmervyn]

Pot kettle black.

If you hadn't cited precise yet false claims about my attitudes, that would have merit. It doesn't.

I've already put up a suggestion on how to fix that, and why citizen's united was a step in the wrong direction.

Which, as above, didn't have merit. Citizens undid a bad legal intent, rather than creating a new bad law.

You're on a rash of Kardashian references. was she in the news for something?

No, I just find her sickening (albeit sexually attractive in the most vulgar fashion). Don't talk about "rash" in the same sentence, please.

not all believers, the ones supporting a big church with political aspirations.

Those would be churches belonging to Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan. Again, Obama has made more religious assertions about how his faith influences him than Bush ever did, yet you whine and wring your hands about the EEEEEBILLL "right".

and i think my words were the organizations encouraged irrationality (because they taught you had to suspend rationality to know god), hypocritical, and designed to encourage conformity and groupthink. Look at how violently you react when I disagree.

You're revising; you were asserting these characteristics as to believers, not to churches. Furthermore, you look even more stupid given your lack of Biblical literacy combined with your lack of historical comprehension - churches were FAR more political in the past. "Overton Window" yet again.

On the topics we've discussed you were lockstep. I'll concede the point if you can point out a difference.

Certainly not my recollection, and since I'm going to be late for pizza I really don't care to review.

You keep saying that, but as i recall his own link proved my point.

Then you'd better lay off the choom.

And not having a dominating church doesn't mean you must have a dominating government.

I'm not claiming anything of the sort. In fact, I'm pretty much saying that YOU are, because of your "creeping Papacy" stupidity. Just because someone doesn't want to sand-blast the religious carvings on National monuments doesn't mean they're demanding human sacrifice and religious tithes.

I know you have some guy who wrote a book about how the two are invariably linked,

Damn books! {/shakefist}

But who tells the government what to tell me to do? The power base is a handful of corporate subsidies, entitlement programs and military pork.

Yet you're not only pretending there's a chicken/egg relationship, you're coming out backwards. The Gov't seizes and shakes down the corporate apparatus, not the other way around; Bill Gates was happy to remain a miserly little wad of shyte until the Congress slapped him about sufficiently to realize that he'd better start coming across with the grease.

Diversity of opinion is important, but so is a common desire to work towards better outcomes. Right now we have neither.

Which side of the political spectrum thinks that nationalism and patriotism is passe at best, despicable at worst? Can you guess? Oh, wait, no, that's right, the "new tone" has nothing to do with blaming the TEA Party for violence at every turn, calling Bush every name under the sun for the prior 8 years, and claiming that the OWS filth are working class heroes.

Theocracy yes.

Ignorance is deadly.

I have plenty of issues with Dems as well.

I've certainly not heard you express them. General whining about Gov't is not explicitly anti-Democrat.

Pot kettle black.

Again, next time I claim you're a warmongering right-wing fascist goon when talking to krischan, your point might have validity.

because the only explanation I ever got was "these things happen".

Imagine that. Someone didn't want to remain in a permanent state of limbo.

oh and for the record, she cheated on me.

Is the other guy "better" than you, and is she still with him? I'm not defending her actions, obviously, but many women think somehow that they can "sleep upwards" into a marriage. It's a stupid instinct, of course, not much better than women who think that they can marry someone and then "make" them a good husband.

Second, I haven't twisted any of your positions, because you have described how you'd like to see things, and i found it quite frightening.

You most certainly have, with malice, as I'd explained previously. During my punching sessions with you, I do not claim that I want Theocracy, or abortion to be illegal, or a number of other things you falsely claimed I believe. Again, I suspect this is because I biatch-slapped you with your demand to not be accountable for your own actions AKA "shame".

Really, the victim card?

No, you're looking at it upside down. That's the "you're a jerk" card.

I'd love to know where that happened. You accused me of that once for supporting *** marriage. It's a BS claim, and it always has been.

You attacked me angrily for not wanting to create queer marriage as a Federal statutes. How is that different?

You're the one that wants to kick out all the atheists (or execute them) for treason.

WOW, you're delusional. Quote, please?

It's very telling that you can spend 50 pages painting a false picture of me--and continue to do so after i have corrected you,

What's false about calling you a Progressive when that's what you actually believe? Just claiming that you're Libertarian doesn't make you one, and I'm not even the one who told you that.

then I say ONE thing you don't like (that came directly from previous conversations) and suddenly you're the victim. Man up.

As you'll recall, the post that pissed me off was an entire diatribe of false characterizations of my beliefs, and you made them to someone else. Yeah, I'm the "victim", yet I'm still man enough to not just use the sort of childish accusations you have. Otherwise I'd just ask if that's what she told you to do. :neener:

[Stevinator]

Which, as above, didn't have merit. Citizens undid a bad legal intent, rather than creating a new bad law.

I don't think making individuals donate their own money instead of other peoples' money is a bad law. The citizens decision allowed MORE bad behavior, which is weakening our country. What should have stopped was allowing unions to contribute to political campaigns. If someone is cheating, stop the cheating, don't say, well fine everyone can cheat.

No, I just find her sickening (albeit sexually attractive in the most vulgar fashion). Don't talk about "rash" in the same sentence, please.

I suppose she could be attractive if you've never heard her talk. Of all the very attractive people on TV though, I think it's odd to pick her out, but hey, we all have our things. I think I'll go with Painman, and lick that girl from Veep (I'll try to get firsties, you never know where his tongue has been).

Those would be churches belonging to Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan. Again, Obama has made more religious assertions about how his faith influences him than Bush ever did, yet you whine and wring your hands about the EEEEEBILLL "right".

Wait, I thought that was all fake?!?!

You're revising; you were asserting these characteristics as to believers, not to churches. Furthermore, you look even more stupid given your lack of Biblical literacy combined with your lack of historical comprehension - churches were FAR more political in the past. "Overton Window" yet again.

Semantics, the organization asks the believer to suspend rational thought for the sake of faith in the deity. Then, since the deity cannot talk for itself, they can tell the believers whatever they'd like. I merely ask that people take a more skeptical approach to these things.

Yet you're not only pretending there's a chicken/egg relationship, you're coming out backwards. The Gov't seizes and shakes down the corporate apparatus, not the other way around; Bill Gates was happy to remain a miserly little wad of shyte until the Congress slapped him about sufficiently to realize that he'd better start coming across with the grease.

And then gives it to different parts of the corporate apparatus. Usually the ones that helped them get elected.

Which side of the political spectrum thinks that nationalism and patriotism is passe at best, despicable at worst? Can you guess? Oh, wait, no, that's right, the "new tone" has nothing to do with blaming the TEA Party for violence at every turn, calling Bush every name under the sun for the prior 8 years, and claiming that the OWS filth are working class heroes.

This one came out of nowhere, and had nothing to do with what I was saying. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say about me here, since I supported the Tea party until it got co-opted by the religious kooks.

I've certainly not heard you express them. General whining about Gov't is not explicitly anti-Democrat.

I think you don't notice because we agree. We've certainly spent more time on things we disagree about. Remember, I'm from Illinois, a state that the Democrat machine in Chicago basically ruined, so I'm not a big fan of their party either. I would love to see the two party system crumble into many different parties, with many different ideologies, but that will never happen, because everytime there's a movement of any kind, one of the existing parties claims it and dilutes it.

Imagine that. Someone didn't want to remain in a permanent state of limbo.

I'm not sure what that means.

Is the other guy "better" than you, and is she still with him? I'm not defending her actions, obviously, but many women think somehow that they can "sleep upwards" into a marriage. It's a stupid instinct, of course, not much better than women who think that they can marry someone and then "make" them a good husband.

I don't know. I never actually met him in person. I honestly don't know what she was thinking. I suppose I dodged a bullet there. I guess I'm much better now, because for a long time I would never have said that.

What's false about calling you a Progressive when that's what you actually believe? Just claiming that you're Libertarian doesn't make you one, and I'm not even the one who told you that.

I didn't claim that. Specifically said i didn't like that label either, there was an entire paragraph about it.

As you'll recall, the post that pissed me off was an entire diatribe of false characterizations of my beliefs, and you made them to someone else. Yeah, I'm the "victim", yet I'm still man enough to not just use the sort of childish accusations you have. Otherwise I'd just ask if that's what she told you to do. :neener:

It's not behind your back, it's a forum, where you can see and counter (as you did) whenever you like.

[jmervyn]

I don't think making individuals donate their own money instead of other peoples' money is a bad law. The citizens decision allowed MORE bad behavior, which is weakening our country. What should have stopped was allowing unions to contribute to political campaigns. If someone is cheating, stop the cheating, don't say, well fine everyone can cheat.

You're completely mis-characterizing both the situation and the decision. McCain-Feingold was bad policy, and the Citizens decision essentially eliminated it. If you want to attack corporate personhood, fine, but as long as that is part of law then corporations are allowed to donate to whom they like, just as citizens do.

Of all the very attractive people on TV though, I think it's odd to pick her out, but hey, we all have our things.

I'm not; I find her disgusting which is why I use her as an objectification of our society's sickness. She's on top of the cultural dogpile because she was boned by a brother, and had a sex tape "stolen".

Semantics, the organization asks the believer to suspend rational thought for the sake of faith in the deity.

You obviously prefer to believe your own delusions than the history of the Enlightenment.

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

And then gives it to different parts of the corporate apparatus. Usually the ones that helped them get elected.

Employees don't have to donate to the corporation. Union members have no choice about their "donations". The Tides Foundation launders money on behalf of Progressives, in order to bypass donation reporting laws. Planned Parenthood takes donations and directs them to bundlers. Ditto for ACORN (and whatever else they call themselves to avoid prosecution). Double ditto for FNMA/FMAC. Guess which ones the Democrats prefer? "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" my arse.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say about me here, since I supported the Tea party until it got co-opted by the religious kooks.

You claim there was no diversity of opinion, because you have some sort of insane belief about the TEA party being religious. That's one of the more stupid claims so far on your part. The TEA Party is hated and those it supports demonized by you and yours because YOU CANNOT ABIDE THE DIVERSITY YOU CLAIM TO ESPOUSE. One only need consider your blatant hypocrisy about the Chick-Fil-A issue to recognize your deep, cancerous hatred.

I'm not sure what that means.

Women generally don't like feeling like they're taxi cabs, getting a fare for short-duration rides. They tend to want someone "stable" and often secretly hope for a permanent arrangement... like marriage.

I guess I'm much better now, because for a long time I would never have said that.

Yeah, or maybe you lost big and are trying to pretend otherwise. I can't read your mind, just your words, but after the "shame" discussion I'm a lot more critical.

It's not behind your back, it's a forum, where you can see and counter (as you did) whenever you like.

That isn't the issue, it's the stuffing false claims in my mouth. Remember how pissy you've been when you felt I mis-characterized your beliefs in abortion, &c. (which I did not do, but rather extrapolated them - which you could have claimed with more validity as being a strawman attack).