- This topic has 65 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 12, 2007 at 10:01 AM #43317January 12, 2007 at 10:09 AM #43319
PerryChase
ParticipantChuck Hagel interview on Charlie Rose.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4101791107248270093&q=charlie+rose
January 12, 2007 at 12:00 PM #43326zk
Participantjg,
I don’t know which is more amazing: your hypocrisy or your failure to see that your hypocrisy is blatantly obvious and that your attempts to put down your fellow posters only reflect badly on yourself.
Your style of debate is consistently confrontational and condescending. You mock your fellow posters by sarcastically calling them “tough and brilliant.” Then you imply that they wouldn’t measure up on your destroyer (when you know next to nothing about them or their toughness). Then, in the same post, you claim to have more decency than them.
While we’re at it, I’d be interested in what fine distinction you make between calling someone “wild-eyed” and calling someone a “nut job” that you can do the former and consider yourself “decent,” while someone who does the latter isn’t decent.
I don’t see any decency about you at all. I just see a silly clown who hopes that a condescending attitude and a lot of bravado can overcome a lack of intellect.
January 12, 2007 at 12:47 PM #43329PD
ParticipantLookoutbelow, my comment regarding this playground type name calling has nothing to do with being offended. Additionally, even though many other people would be offended by your attempt to marginalize me through my gender, I am not.
As for growing a pair, I already have a nice (metaphorical) set that I carry around with me and whip out whenever I need a little extra testosterone. I’m thinking that mine are bigger than yours. 🙂
January 12, 2007 at 9:04 PM #43342Anonymous
GuestYep, zk, you’re right about me using ‘wild-eyed’ and calling others to account for using ‘nut job.’ I agree; no difference, lack of tact on my part.
But, when I use such, it’s really in a sense of parody: painting, using bright, broad brush strokes, someone with all of the overblown adjectives.
PC, bisexual has one meaning: sex with both men and women. I don’t confuse such with ‘sex twice per day,’ which would be ‘bis in die’ sexual or ‘bid’sexual (physicians use the shorthand ‘BID’ when they write precriptions, to have the pharmacist type, “Take twice per day”).
An article came out recently tabulating rate of ever-having-had-a-homosexual-experience by men and women; I can’t find it, but it was, I think, 4% for men and 11% for women. I was surprised at how high it was for women.
No, Perry, your experience is not the norm.
January 13, 2007 at 4:05 AM #43344lostkitty
Participantjg – Your tone is decidedly different in this post than in most of your others. I hope that is because you agree about the hypocrisy of repeatedly saying you are such a devout Christian while constantly verbally attacking and passing judgement on people…. some ruthlessly.
This behavior would not make Jesus very pleased, but he would offer love and support to an angry soul who behaved in this way.
January 13, 2007 at 9:23 AM #43346Guestlk, with kjm, I tried to illuminate the data that adoption by gays is bad for society. kjm may be a good mother (or father), but raising kids is difficult, serious work, and society should ‘idealize’ the structure — married biological or adoptive parents — that has, over the course of time, done, on average, the best job of raising children. I don’t recall making a personal attack on kjm.
ps is highly irritating, but my blanket statement about the quality of her contributions vs. her irritation-inducing-level was a bit (but only a bit) much. I stand moderated.
zk was right about my statements.
What, are Christians not allowed to say, “This is right!” “This is wrong!” or “This is irritating!” The good Lord threw the moneychangers out of the temple. The good Lord stated that some things bear supporting and others do not: (John 15:2) “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He (God, the Father) takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit.”
I said that Perry was not normal; I did not say he was evil and I did not condemn him to hell. Jeepers, I have mixed success getting my wife and kids to follow my lead (PC vs. Mac, fish vs. pasta); I certainly don’t have a direct line to St. Peter.
January 13, 2007 at 11:23 AM #43355Participantjg, I’m not in the least offended by your comments. I’m entertained by them. In some ways i agree with you — we should encourage that “good” and discourage the “bad.” However, I find quoting the Bible and the holier-than-thou attitudes to be over to top.
My Catholic education taught me good manners and discipline but I never believed all the religious stuff.
Your way of thinking reminds me of Victorian/Edwardian society where people projected prim and proper images but would do wicked things in the dark.
January 13, 2007 at 11:43 AM #43356ParticipantYou all expect JG to be tolerant of you and/or alternate lifestyles yet you are not tolerant of his conservative view. Thats a nice little taste of hypocrisy.
Further, before anyone begins to harangue me and accuse me blindly defending JG, I do believe that I am on record as saying that I am in favor of civil unions. I’ll even go a step farther and say that I believe homosexuality is a natural state for a low percentage of the human population.
January 13, 2007 at 12:29 PM #43357GuestPD, I agree with you, that homosexuality probably is a normal state for small proportion of the population. My druthers are to keep it in the background, not as a publicized, or lionized (i.e., marriage or taught as ‘normal’ in school), choice. Let ’em be; heck, Falwell, the Pope, and other orthodox Christian leaders don’t go around preaching the stoning, burning, and hating of ’em.
If they want to will stuff to each other, great. But, allowing them to adopt makes no sense to me, as, on average, it is a dangerous choice for children. That’s what Christianity is really about: protecting the weak, ill, and less fortunate.
January 14, 2007 at 2:01 PM #43401Participantjg, i’m writing my answer here not to clutter the stadium thread.
Bravo, Barbara Boxer! She did a great thing to raise the issue of who pays the price of war — certainly not the leaders who send soldiers to war. It’s important for the public to confront this issue. Thanks to Barbara Boxer, voters in Middle America, who voted for Bush, are now realizing they are being betrayed by the very person they voted for.
jg, do you think it’s “normal” for Condi Rice to stay single at her age? She has a hot bod for her age, huh? Maybe there’s more to it than you think.
As far as the Chargers are concerned, they can pay their own way; or somehow pass on the cost to their fans. Elderly retirees, or other members of the public who aren’t fans shouldn’t be asked to subsidize millionaires.
January 14, 2007 at 3:01 PM #43404powayseller
ParticipantPerry’s personal adventures have nothing to do with Bush’s war plan. Shifting the focus from Iraqi Brigades to insulting Perry, is a last resort for those who are unable to defend the plan on its own merits. But then, maybe they are encouraged by a recent comment that name calling shows “strong social skills”?
January 14, 2007 at 8:44 PM #43411ParticipantWar costs are hitting historic proportions
The price tag for the Iraq conflict and overall effort against terrorism is expected to surpass Vietnam’s next year.
By Joel Havemann, Times Staff Writer
January 14, 2007WASHINGTON — By the time the Vietnam war ended in 1975, it had become America’s longest war, shadowed the legacies of four presidents, killed 58,000 Americans along with many thousands more Vietnamese, and cost the U.S. more than $660 billion in today’s dollars.
By the time the bill for World War II passed the $600-billion mark, in mid-1943, the United States had driven German forces out of North Africa, devastated the Japanese fleet in the Battle of Midway, and launched the vast offensives that would liberate Europe and the South Pacific.
The Iraq war is far smaller and narrower than those conflicts, and it has not extended beyond the tenure of a single president. But its price tag is beginning to reach historic proportions, and the budgetary “burn rate” for Iraq may be greater than in some periods in past wars.
January 15, 2007 at 8:05 AM #43421GuestYeah, you’re right, Perry, $600B from the ’40s equals $600B today.
Yeah, and you should be able to buy Manhattan today for $28, too, huh.
Unless the $600B is an INCREMENTAL cost figure, be careful.
And, now that we get to take the gloves off in Iraq, we’re gonna win within the year.
Like housing, gold, and the stock market, I feel confident in my views and am biding my time. We’ll see.
January 15, 2007 at 10:41 AM #43431blahblahblah
ParticipantAnd, now that we get to take the gloves off in Iraq, we’re gonna win within the year.
The setup is perfect now. If our war effort succeeds this year, we can thank Bush for his steadfast leadership in the face of heavy domestic opposition (even from his own generals), but if we fail, we can blame the whole mess on the Democratically-controlled congress and the “blame-America-first” crowd. Either way we will have been right and we will always have been right!
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.