» Site Navigation |
|
» Online Users: 778 |
0 members and 778 guests |
No Members online |
Most users ever online was 9,654, Today at 04:16 AM. |
|
 |
|
02-10-2006, 04:13 PM
|
#3631
|
Random Syndicate (admin)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Romantically enfranchised
Posts: 14,280
|
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Politicians and statesmen that participate in corruption hurt their friends and help their enemies. Members that are corrupt wound their own party and the nation but provide comfort to the opposition. What really assists the other party is when the guilty claim that they are being singled out because of partisan persecution.
When Jim Wright and Dan Rostenkowski were looting the national treasury, they screwed the nation and the Democrat party and the entire Democrat cause. When they said they were only being persecuted out of partisanship, they hurt any Democrat who really was being targeted for purely partisan reasons. Since these men were associated with Democrat causes they irreparably harmed such causes. It was their corruption that I believe that lead to the Republican takeover. A great many honest Democrats lost their seats because of what these guys did. When Democrats in Congress were being subject to purely partisan attacks, no one believed they were because Rostenkowski and Wright had already cried wolf. Dan and Jim assisted the Republican party and the Republican cause more than almost any Republican during their time by handing the Congress to the Republicans.
On the flip side, these Republicans today that have associated themselves with Abramoff have helped the Democrat party more than any Democrat possibly could. Every time these guys like Delay, who claims that they are being persecuted out of a partisan vendetta, screams persecution, they are providing future cover for all future real partisan vendettas against Republicans. These corrupt Republicans are associating Republican causes, such as limited government, tax cuts, a strong defense, free trade etc, with corruption and therefore are preventing these policies from being implemented. Delay, Pombo, Doolittle etc, are doing what the Democrats could not do themselves, they are hamstringing the Republican revolution. And they may implement what the Democrats could only dream of but could never achieve on their own, Democrat control of the Congress.
Delay, Pombo, Doolittle, Abramoff etc, are the true champions of the Democrat party and of liberal causes.
Thanks guys.
|
You know, the adjective is "Democratic."
The proper use of grammar in this country has declined considerably over the last few years. It's sad, really.
__________________
"In the olden days before the internet, you'd take this sort of person for a ride out into the woods and shoot them, as Darwin intended, before he could spawn."--Will the Vampire People Leave the Lobby? pg 79
|
|
|
02-10-2006, 04:23 PM
|
#3632
|
the poor-man's spuckler
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,997
|
InaniTy
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
If anyone else besides Ty of SAM doesn't understand where the contradiction are please let me know.
|
If you're positing that the contention that "not blasphemous" under Christian doctrine equals "should not offend" Christians, then, with that assumption, the 4th statement is contradictory.
I would disagree with that (and I assume that Ty does too), but I understand the position--if a Christian takes offense at some insult (for lack of a better word) to some element of Christianity, it is, by definition, blasphemy. Thus, Ty saying it isn't blasphemous means he is also saying that other Christians should not take offense. Relies on a very broad definition of blasphemy.
|
|
|
02-10-2006, 04:27 PM
|
#3633
|
Moderasaurus Rex
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,076
|
InaniTy
Quote:
Originally posted by Cletus Miller
If you're positing that the contention that "not blasphemous" under Christian doctrine equals "should not offend" Christians, then, with that assumption, the 4th statement is contradictory.
|
Of course, you can only posit that if you assume that I didn't mean anything at all when I refered to Christian doctrine. Alternatively, you might think that I meant something when I used those words, and that I was trying to draw a distinction concerning the nature of the offense.
I agree that if you don't bother reading some of my words, they may appear contradictory. Caveat emptor.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
|
|
02-10-2006, 04:28 PM
|
#3634
|
Moderasaurus Rex
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,076
|
South Dakota moves to ban abortion.
My sister says KELO in Sioux Falls is reporting:
The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.
Supporters are pushing the measure in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.
The bill banning all abortions in South Dakota was passed 47-to-22 in the House.
Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.
The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
|
|
02-10-2006, 04:33 PM
|
#3635
|
For what it's worth
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: With Thumper
Posts: 6,793
|
InaniTy
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The first time that you said I contradicted myself, I had the courtesy to give you a substantive response. I regret that you can't be bothered to do the same.
|
This is pathetic. I simply quoted what you said. It is totally obvious why I think they are contradictory. I am going to cut them down to the essence. I am not changing what they say in any way, or changing their meaning.
Claim:
"I haven't said other Christians .....shouldn't be offended."
Prior statements:
"..but I'm not sure I understand the basis for their offense
"But it doesn't have to do with Christian doctrine, so far as I know. Want to cite chapter and verse to me?"
"Let's stick to Christianity. What makes that blasphemous?"
Does any one besided Ty not see the contradiction? Does anyone think the way I edited them changed their meaning nor mislead the reader as to their original meaning?
|
|
|
02-10-2006, 04:38 PM
|
#3636
|
For what it's worth
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: With Thumper
Posts: 6,793
|
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You know, the adjective is "Democratic."
The proper use of grammar in this country has declined considerably over the last few years. It's sad, really.
|
Actually you are wrong. It is the Democrat party not the Democratic party.
When a cause is brought forth by the Democrat party, I call it a Democrat cause. When a cause is brought forth to increase democratic representation it is a "democratic" cause.
If you read my prior posts I am consistent. I always refer to the Democrat party and Democrat causes.
When I refer to causes not having anything to do with the Democrat party but are used to implement more direct representation I call them democratic.
In addition, when referring to the party or its causes the word is capitalized: like Democrat Party, or Democrat causes. But when you are talking about more direct representation then the word is not capitalized: as in - "We need to implement more democratic reforms so the people are better represented."
Last edited by Spanky; 02-10-2006 at 04:44 PM..
|
|
|
02-10-2006, 04:39 PM
|
#3637
|
Southern charmer
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: At the Great Altar of Passive Entertainment
Posts: 7,033
|
InaniTy
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Does any one besided Ty not see the contradiction? Does anyone think the way I edited them changed their meaning nor mislead the reader as to their original meaning?
|
It's contradictory if you think that "blasphemy" = Christians taking offense to it.
Given the carefree use of the term in today's society -- Pat Robertson probably thinks that everything short of reading the King James and only the King James version is blasphemous -- I can see how you'd equate the two concepts.
But Ty is trying to make the point that blasphemy can be, and more properly is, a narrower therm than that. Agree or disagree with the argument, but don't refuse to acknowledge the point.
__________________
I'm done with nonsense here. --- H. Chinaski
|
|
|
02-10-2006, 04:42 PM
|
#3638
|
Southern charmer
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: At the Great Altar of Passive Entertainment
Posts: 7,033
|
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
When I refer to causes not having anything to do with the Democrat party but are used to implement more direct representation I call them Democratic.
|
Actually, then it would be called "democratic."
This seems to be a badge of honor for you, but it's a bit of a baffling one. Would you call GOP activities "Republic" activites? Should we the capitalized term "Republican" only for those activities related to representative democracy?
__________________
I'm done with nonsense here. --- H. Chinaski
|
|
|
02-10-2006, 04:49 PM
|
#3639
|
Moderasaurus Rex
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,076
|
InaniTy
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
This is pathetic. I simply quoted what you said. It is totally obvious why I think they are contradictory. I am going to cut them down to the essence. I am not changing what they say in any way, or changing their meaning.
|
Bullshit, Spanky. You are editing these quotes to delete language (see italics) that says exactly what I keep telling you I meant:
- "I wasn't offended by Serrano. I'm sure others were, but I'm not sure I understand the basis for their offense, other than that they felt disrespected and marginalized. That's a little different than a situation where the very act of depicting God (or G-d, as some of my MOT friends call him) is blasphemous.
"I understand why (some) Christians take offense. But it doesn't have to do with Christian doctrine, so far as I know. Want to cite chapter and verse to me?"
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
The image of The Prophet was blasphemous to the religion of Islam. The image of Mary, Mother of God with elephant feces thrown all over it was blasphemous to religion(s) as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's stick to Christianity. What makes that blasphemous?"
Give me a fucking break. If you were really trying to understand what I'm saying, you wouldn't keep editing this stuff so it doesn't make any sense.
For about the fourth fucking time: Anyone might be offended by a depiction of a religious figure in urine or dung. But no Christian doctrine that I'm aware of specifically makes that blasphemous.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
|
|
02-10-2006, 04:51 PM
|
#3640
|
For what it's worth
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: With Thumper
Posts: 6,793
|
InaniTy
Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
It's contradictory if you think that "blasphemy" = Christians taking offense to it.
Given the carefree use of the term in today's society -- Pat Robertson probably thinks that everything short of reading the King James and only the King James version is blasphemous -- I can see how you'd equate the two concepts.
But Ty is trying to make the point that blasphemy can be, and more properly is, a narrower therm than that. Agree or disagree with the argument, but don't refuse to acknowledge the point.
|
No I think you have that wrong.
Does putting a cross in urine or putting feces on the virgin mary = blasphemy. I think under almost anyone interpretation it does.
Does putting a cross in urine or putting feces on the virign mary offend Christians for obvious reasons. I think it does.
Does the fact that the Koran particularly proscribes putting Mohammeds face on something and that the bible does not particularly proscribe Christians from depicting Jesus in urine or Mary covered in feces, make one clearly offensive to Muslims while the other not clearly offensive to Christians. Or does it also imply that the Mohammed depiction would be more offensive to muslims than the Christ and Mary depictions to Christians because one is particulary proscribe by the Koran and the other not particular proscribed by the Bible. I don't think it does.
Following all those assumptions the above statements are erroneous and contradictory - am I wrong?
|
|
|
02-10-2006, 04:54 PM
|
#3641
|
Random Syndicate (admin)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Romantically enfranchised
Posts: 14,280
|
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Actually you are wrong. It is the Democrat party not the Democratic party.
When a cause is brought forth by the Democrat party, I call it a Democrat cause. When a cause is brought forth to increase democratic representation it is a "democratic" cause.
If you read my prior posts I am consistent. I always refer to the Democrat party and Democrat causes.
When I refer to causes not having anything to do with the Democrat party but are used to implement more direct representation I call them democratic.
In addition, when referring to the party or its causes the word is capitalized: like Democrat Party, or Democrat causes. But when you are talking about more direct representation then the word is not capitalized: as in - "We need to implement more democratic reforms so the people are better represented."
|
www.democrats.org Read the top. It is called the Democratic Party.
__________________
"In the olden days before the internet, you'd take this sort of person for a ride out into the woods and shoot them, as Darwin intended, before he could spawn."--Will the Vampire People Leave the Lobby? pg 79
|
|
|
02-10-2006, 04:54 PM
|
#3642
|
Wild Rumpus Facilitator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In a teeny, tiny, little office
Posts: 14,167
|
Have Fun, RT
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
my mom's social standing would rocket is she were from Naples. she's Calabrese.
And Judas narced J out and set him up.....the Centurions were just being officious and following orders.
|
Spoken like a good soldier. Mussolini would be proud.
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
|
|
|
02-10-2006, 04:58 PM
|
#3643
|
Wearing the cranky pants
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pulling your finger
Posts: 7,120
|
Um ...
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You should read mine. Lots of sexy adventures.
|
With interludes to go the toilet. Um, or not.
__________________
Boogers!
|
|
|
02-10-2006, 04:58 PM
|
#3644
|
For what it's worth
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: With Thumper
Posts: 6,793
|
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
Actually, then it would be called "democratic."
This seems to be a badge of honor for you, but it's a bit of a baffling one. Would you call GOP activities "Republic" activites? Should we the capitalized term "Republican" only for those activities related to representative democracy?
|
It is the Democrat party and it is the Republican party. Not the Republic party. You are either a Democrat or a Republican. Not a Democratic or a Republic.
When you have a Republican cause. That is a cause pushed by the Republicans. When you have a cause that is promoted to have indirect representation that is a "republican" cause.
|
|
|
02-10-2006, 05:01 PM
|
#3645
|
Random Syndicate (admin)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Romantically enfranchised
Posts: 14,280
|
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
It is the Democrat party and it is the Republican party. Not the Republic party. You are either a Democrat or a Republican. Not a Democratic or a Republic.
|
Am I an America citizen instead of an American citizen? Your concept of adjectives is fascinating.
__________________
"In the olden days before the internet, you'd take this sort of person for a ride out into the woods and shoot them, as Darwin intended, before he could spawn."--Will the Vampire People Leave the Lobby? pg 79
|
|
|
 |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|