Cain this all be true?

No, my reality is based in science and fact, and your reality is based in emotion and feelings. Ironically, your argument is predicated on the same sentiments as those who were opposed to abolition and civil rights. Because you "feel" something doesn't meet YOUR criteria, it isn't a real human being. In the early 1800s, many people argued that black people were inferior to other human life, and didn't deserve Constitutional rights or protections, and the SAME argument is being made today regarding the human fetus. Regardless of science and all the evidence to the contrary, you continue to insist the human fetus is not human life, just as anti-abolitionists believed blacks were not people.

Do you remember when you kept asking where a cerebral cortex evolved FROM, Dix?

It's funny to hear you talk about science as if you know it, or as though its some sort of ally.
 
I wish all you super grammar nerds would get off the spelling. It is a rather juvenile way to feel superior to another. I see many, including myself make spelling errs, but you are a big, smart guy and can figure out what Jarod means. There are many intelligent people I know who can't spell or write a grammatically correct paper. This is a message board, not his college thesis.

You get frustrated and that is when you all pile on him about his spelling. It is so stupid. There are several posters on this forum who write perfectly, but don't have much else going for them. Jarod at least gives you a good debate.

We all make spelling mistakes from time to time. Mainly due to typing too fast etc....

Jarod is an idiot that refuses to better himself. Refuses to learn the correct ways to spell words. Refuses to even use simple spell check tools that are available. So yes, occasionally I will mock his spelling.

Jarod is NOT giving anyone a 'good debate'. A good debater LISTENS to what his opponents are saying and then rebuts that position. Jarod is ignoring our replies and instead repeating his same comments over and over again ad nauseum.
 
If that were so, and I would like to see the quote, the problem I would have with the Christian is not his Christianity but his creep. Cain did not say that, he said he would not appoint a Muslim.

And then clarified, saying it differently, but pointing out the policy creep inherent in one who believes in Sharia Law, believing that such policy creep would be dangerous to the constitution each are sworn to uphold.
 
You mean intelligence.

What's the difference? Have you ever had a hard time understanding what point he was trying to make?

I'll tell ya, if someone is going to single another poster out for spelling, their own spelling & grammar had better be immaculate...
 
And then clarified, saying it differently, but pointing out the policy creep inherent in one who believes in Sharia Law, believing that such policy creep would be dangerous to the constitution each are sworn to uphold.

He made the first comment and said he stood by it.
Listen to what he later very reluctantly said, where he backed off slightly when pressed.
Regardless, if you belive he honestly backed off his statements and truely belives differently than what he origionally said, then fundamentally we agree regarding the issue. Not appointing someone because he/she is a member of a specific religen is wrong, not appointing someone because they cant seperate the two or because they disagree with you on a specific issue is okay.
 
And then clarified, saying it differently, but pointing out the policy creep inherent in one who believes in Sharia Law, believing that such policy creep would be dangerous to the constitution each are sworn to uphold.

So was he saying, you cant be a muslim without the creep, because if so, not only is that ignorant, its requireing a religous test that is violative of the Constitution and we know how much the TEA PARTY WACKS pretend to love the Constitution.
 
If that were so, and I would like to see the quote, the problem I would have with the Christian is not his Christianity but his creep. Cain did not say that, he said he would not appoint a Muslim.

BTW - There is a whole thread about it where you compared religion to a penis and spoke about how much you don't want it "shoved down your throat".

As I said, I was saying it nicely.
 
We all make spelling mistakes from time to time. Mainly due to typing too fast etc....

Jarod is an idiot that refuses to better himself. Refuses to learn the correct ways to spell words. Refuses to even use simple spell check tools that are available. So yes, occasionally I will mock his spelling.

Jarod is NOT giving anyone a 'good debate'. A good debater LISTENS to what his opponents are saying and then rebuts that position. Jarod is ignoring our replies and instead repeating his same comments over and over again ad nauseum.

I don't know Jarod that well, but what if there are other reason we tent aware that causes Jarod to not see his errors. I don't make fun of people for such things because I do not know them personally. It is a message board and I often don't spell check because it is fun to see people's head explode over spelling.

If you think his debate is that bad, why engage him. Do like I do with Dixie and ignore him. Engage people you find to be stimulating.

But, if you do that, I fear you will only be talking to yourself in the mirror. ;)
 
So was he saying, you cant be a muslim without the creep, because if so, not only is that ignorant, its requireing a religous test that is violative of the Constitution and we know how much the TEA PARTY WACKS pretend to love the Constitution.

I think this is a lawyer thing. You pretend that the statement must be taken as if it is the only thing they have ever said, and that if you focus on it you can get a jury to focus on the same. However we aren't a captive audience, we can read the later clarification and understand he means Muslims that are proponents of Sharia Law.

I can, with certainty, state that if I were an anti-Abortion superchristian you would not appoint me to the Supreme Court, because of the policy creep. That must be because you only pretend to "love" the constitution...

:rolleyes:
 
I don't know Jarod that well, but what if there are other reason we tent aware that causes Jarod to not see his errors. I don't make fun of people for such things because I do not know them personally. It is a message board and I often don't spell check because it is fun to see people's head explode over spelling.

If you think his debate is that bad, why engage him. Do like I do with Dixie and ignore him. Engage people you find to be stimulating.

But, if you do that, I fear you will only be talking to yourself in the mirror.
;)

LMAO That was a burn SF!
 
Why do a lot of conservatives hate feelings? What do you do with them when you have them? Is sex even a logical exploit for you? Is it like being Spock? Or more like being a robot? Does not having feelings make you ill? You bottle them up and then is it like uncorking champagne when you finally let go?

I can't imagine stifling my feelings. They are so much a part of me. My gut reactions are more often correct, then if I try to reason in my decision making process.

I wonder if there is a good book I can read on this subject matter. I do know that my uncle, a Spock like man, in his later years became a great big ball of mush! And it was a joy to watch him and his little dog.
 
BTW - There is a whole thread about it where you compared religion to a penis and spoke about how much you don't want it "shoved down your throat".

As I said, I was saying it nicely.

Hey, that is funny, the religious penis, sorry I missed that one!
 
"Is it like being Spock?"

Please Rana, don't dirty Spock's name! Spock is sexy, not to mention these guys aren't at all logical, just self-congratulatory.
 
If that were so, and I would like to see the quote, the problem I would have with the Christian is not his Christianity but his creep. Cain did not say that, he said he would not appoint a Muslim.

No, sorry pinhead... that simply wasn't ALL he said. If that were ALL he said, you might have some kind of valid point, but we have to take what people say in context and look at ALL of what they say, not just the one little part we want to focus on. You would have a MAJOR problem, if a president appointed an outspoken Christian fanatic to ANY public office, because you HAVE had a problem when just plain old ordinary Christians were appointed. Look at the hell you people gave Palin for her religious beliefs? Now you want to pretend that someone who is a Muslim, who believes in Sharia, you wouldn't have any problem with? It's just a typical pinhead double standard, the only reason you've become such a cheerleader for Islam, is because people on the right oppose Sharia. Does the conservative right have to embrace and preach the religion of Islam before you fuckwits will stand up against it, or what?
 
"Is it like being Spock?"

Please Rana, don't dirty Spock's name! Spock is sexy, not to mention these guys aren't at all logical, just self-congratulatory.

I've gotta believe that many of Spock's responses to conservatives on the board would be along the lines of "most illogical."

Still, looking at some of the morality tales from the old shows, I have always suspected that Gene Roddenberry was a rightie....
 
BTW - There is a whole thread about it where you compared religion to a penis and spoke about how much you don't want it "shoved down your throat".

As I said, I was saying it nicely.

I dont belive I called out Christanity out in that thread.... I also dont belive I said anything about Christians (or members of any other religen) not being allowed to hold any political position. I simply made an analogy about not likeing things shoved down my throat, particularly religen and penises. (I am assuming on the penisus as I have not had one shoved down my throat.)
 
I think this is a lawyer thing. You pretend that the statement must be taken as if it is the only thing they have ever said, and that if you focus on it you can get a jury to focus on the same. However we aren't a captive audience, we can read the later clarification and understand he means Muslims that are proponents of Sharia Law.

I can, with certainty, state that if I were an anti-Abortion superchristian you would not appoint me to the Supreme Court, because of the policy creep. That must be because you only pretend to "love" the constitution...

:rolleyes:

IT would not be because you were Super-Chrisitan, it would be because you dont share my view on the Right to Privacy illistrated by the Court in Roe v. Wade.
 
Back
Top