Cain this all be true?

Superfreak said:
Actually it was pretty much the truth.... the rest of you are simply not stimulating enough (on a relative scale to my awesomeness)

;)
Click to expand...

We know, you have told us in many different ways on many different occasions. I still am trying to wrap my mind around it.
 
Onceler said:
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...
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you been in a special room with Yurt right now?
 
Dixie said:
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?
Click to expand...

I do? Where, show me? I am a Christian and I would not have a problem with me being appointed.....
 
Superfreak said:
Wow.... I could take the above to a completely inappropriate place right now. But I shall endeavor to be a gentleman.... just this once.
Click to expand...

Actually I was thinking that "The Tales of the Religious Penis" would make a great title for a satire of the religious right male politician always caught with his pants down.
 
Onceler said:
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...
Click to expand...

that said... if Jarod is going to continue to pretend we aren't answering his questions, then I am going to mock his spelling.

Odd that you don't comment on the fact that we have answered his position multiple times yet he continues to pretend we aren't.
 
Onceler said:
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....
Click to expand...

He did have some right-ish ideas! Especially about women and sex. I think you might be right.
 
Superfreak said:
that said... if Jarod is going to continue to pretend we aren't answering his questions, then I am going to mock his spelling.

Odd that you don't comment on the fact that we have answered his position multiple times yet he continues to pretend we aren't.
Click to expand...

Speaking of being like Yurt, you're not going to start putting up posts and thread wondering "Gee, I wonder if Onceler will say anything about this?" are you?
 
brazenhussy said:
"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.
Click to expand...

Spock rules, but sexy is T'pol. Yowza. Beautiful, incredibly intelligent, logical, and sleeps with a human.
 
Superfreak said:
You two are both dorks for watching Star Trek.
Click to expand...

I have never met anyone cool who didn't watch Star Trek.

I was just thinking that Damo could start a whole separate forum for discussion on the political messages in Star Trek alone. That show was years - or should I say parsecs? - ahead of its time...
 
Jarod said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere, you basically agree with Cain then. He's just more honest about where exactly the disconnect in beliefs comes. You pretend that it wouldn't be because I was superchristian, however it is "why" (in my example) I believe what you so abhor. Basically, the superchristian anti-abortionists need not apply.
 
Dixie said:
Okay,,,,, again..... Presidents can't "outlaw" abortion! If they could, it would have already been done! So it doesn't matter what Cain or any other potential candidate would support, they can't do it! All you can take away from that is, he would appoint judges that are pro-life... Independents are inherently pro-choice or opposed to people who are pro-life. I realize you see everything through liberal colored glasses, but reality is very different.
Click to expand...

That's right...nothing like watching someone dodging an issue by being obtuse and disingenuous.

OF COURSE the President can outlaw abortions...IF he has a like minded congressional MAJORITY in both houses of Congress. Congressional Righties will write the bill and CAIN would sign it into law...

NEXT?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top