posters don't count, unless you 'sign' it
Bill Clinton's revisionist melt down...
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
I suspect that in this respect you differ from most proponents of the 10 commandments in the courthouse.
It's hard to speculate as to how I'd feel, but it's fair to say I'd be uncomfortable and apprehensive no matter what was engraved on the wall or what(if any) religion was espoused by the judge, even had I the omniscience to detect it. I would likely be fearful of getting a fair trial and be concerned about many things. Now would I want to be on trial for a capital crime in a nation where Sharia was enforced? HELL NO!
As I said before, I could care less what was carved on the wall unless, perhaps, it was a Bottecelli in bas relief. I would not recite OUR pledge of allegiance were it changed to "one nation under Allah", but if I sought to emigrate to a nation that did as a condition of citizenship, I'd either have to suck it up and speak the words hollowly or seek citizenship elsewhere.
Truthfully, I'm not a particularly observant individual out-n-about under the best of circumstances,much less if I was about to go on trial. Also, as an FYI, I value ALL belief in God, no matter what name you call him- God, Jehovah, Jesus, Yahweh, Great Spirit, Jah Rastafari, Allah, or "Hindu Floaty Thing*".
*An aside for those who've seen Grizzly Man
Hmmmmm...I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with because I agree with your statement above. Saying that you have liberal tendancies is(at least to me) quite different than saying what OMGF said- "I am very liberal". For example, I have liberal tendancies when you look at topics like gay marriage and the "War on Drugs", yet conservative tendancies when discussing abortion and gun control. I would never label myself as liberal OR conservative, though, because a thoughtful man(again, IMO) considers the merits and demerits of each issue independant of any aggregate, e.g. republican, democrat, conservative, liberal, christian, atheist, heterosexual, homosexual, etc. Does my position as clarified make more sense now?
It wouldn't shock me to discover that you are you correct, ohio, but I'm OK with that. I likely "differ from most proponents of the 10 commandments in the courthouse" in that I poke smot, enjoy vigorous, non-procreative sex and could care less about gay marriage, too.
Have you met N8?
You are equivocating. You are basically saying that because you used more words that you are more thoughtful than I. Note that I did not use the word as a noun as you would ascribe to me.
Do you think that it is a condition of citizenship in this country to swear allegiance to god?
So, all belief in god so long as you believe in god? Please tell me that is not what you meant.
I believe that, if there is any god at all, there is only One God, by any other name.
I like to call It 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'.
oh, and I also believe that Global Warming is caused by the reduction of the Caribbean Pirate population.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
And also to you. Arrrrr!
Pastafarians Unite!
Here's a good op-ed from today's WaPo on this episode.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801454.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801454.html
show me the 'good'...
you didn't seem to express the same opinion about the larry king interview only days earlier.
perhaps you missed it?
He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.WaPo op-ed said:
*sigh*
Change your path to God, my son.
Nice red herring.
It seems that you didn't quite get it $tinkle, so let me spell it out for you.
Your first error is in introducing a red herring. I call it that because it has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the hypocrisy displayed by the administration in the op-ed. Clinton was hypocritical, but that doesn't matter in the context of what the current administration is doing now.
Your second error is in making a bad assumption. You posted that original post before I was participating in this thread. Then, because I called you out on your red herring (as explained above) without addressing the side-track that was your red herring, you assumed that I was somehow willfully ignorant (as you posted here.)
So, you've made 2 errors now over this post. Good job.
oh, is that was this thread is about?
you seem to show a penchant for "thread-jack" only when it's convenient, it seems (e.g. "don't snipe at me at other threads", or some such snivelling)
if you make a comment on a thread, it's a reasonable expectation you will have read & understood all preceding comments, especially when your first comment comes at "09-26-2006, 10:46 AM", & this one addresses transcend's comment, which he posted after mine.
therefore, you were indeed a participant up to the point of my posting mr. clinton's hypocritical advice.
from this truth, there is no possible hope of escape.
who's sniping now?
That's what the comment was about that you addressed. That's what makes it a red herring. Do I need to link that one too so you can read what it is?
Also, I would hardly call it snivelling, considering that I'm willing to debate you anywhere. I was simply pointing out that you were not using good etiquette.
I did read all the comments, assuming that I didn't would be another bad assumption by you.
In what twisted world? Your comment was way before mine, my comment to Transcend was off the cuff meant as a joke. The fact that I didn't respond directly to you doesn't mean jack, except that I didn't feel the need to answer.
Only in your twisted logic is this true. This is some pretty desperate grasping at straws on your part.
At least I did it on the proper thread.
Just now saw this, because it showed up in 6 other threads as stinkle's self-proclaimed grand victory over the PaWN...
Uh, wow. So Clinton makes one comment about how to respond to name-calling, and it's somehow at odds with vehemently defending his actions? I can see what you're going for, but you're really reaching. Clinton may be a hypocrit (most people are, let alone politicians are) but if that's the closest you can come up with on someone that spends 90% their life under media scrutiny then he is damn good at hiding it.
I really hope you've got a bigger, shinier, more rainbow-y feather in your cap from this forum that this single post...