lletdownl said:
"either way... your quote said that gay marriage was frowned upon by the vast majority of the middle... thats just 100% false.."
That's not what my quote said, nor was what I said 100% false...there you go again with the percentages....
Don't misquote me or reconstruct what I said to suit your argument, which can only be backed-up with percentages you've made-up.
Thanks.
What you are doing is interpreting a lack of support as Opposition, and that's a toxic, antagonistic way of trying to reason with people....just because someone prefers blue, does not mean they oppose brown - you can't fill-in the holes of a premise with whatever you want.
ok, you said that same sex marriage was "despised" by the middle... and then later you said that it was an 80/20 split worldwide against gay marriage...
the poll i supplied pretty thoroughly negated the notion that the middle despises gay marriage...
as for the 80/20 split, im fairly certain that is a made up number as well.
i suppose it was your choice of words... 'that the middle clearly despises' which i found wildly inaccurate.
honestly, though this feels like a useless tangent, its actually quite telling. Whichever way you slice the numbers, which ever polls you look at, the demographic in this debate which is growing is the demographic that is OK with gay marriage. The demographic which is shrinking is the demographic that 'despises' gay marriage. Everyone here knows the general party affiliations of those 2 demographics...
@lletdownl:
What are you talking about? I never said "despised".
Man - you need to stop Misquoting me....
Also, this might help you think, as it illustrates how your brain works: Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
ah, ok... well yes, youre probably right that the majority of the mid east dislikes gay marriage... glad you didnt mean that you believed the middle despised gay marriage...that would have been too difficult to lay off and id have probably ended up calling you bad names or something
evilp, you stepped over a line by calling WonderK that name, especially when most here are trying to have a discussion and not resorting to name-calling.
Yeah I had to step out....I've got family and WonderMan coming into town for my graduation so I'm a bit busy. Plus I need to practice my speech.
Speaking of family, my right-wing neo-con cousin (god love him) sent me a 4-paragraph email earlier with the subject line "Why do liberals hate women?". I typically don't respond when he baits me in this way. I don't like wasting my time, generally speaking, trying to reason with someone who thinks this way, and whose mind I will never change. If I were to respond seriously, I would say, "we don't hate women, as I am one, we just hate hypocrites." The snarky side of me wants to say "we don't hate women we just hate robots, i.e. Ann Coulter".
What do you guys in the peanut gallery think? Should I say anything back? Do conservatives really think that liberals "hate" women all of a sudden? Or is this another crazy fringe thing? (I'm being serious here, so please refrain from any further creative destruction of my name :o)
Yeah, holz, it has something to do with Sarah Palin and the whole Carrie Prejean thing. I didn't really look at any of the links he sent because, I just don't care.
Just a response to the aforementioned topic: politicians are like rats (universal definition), they are first to leave sinking ship. Alas, republicans leaving in droves Republican Party. However, if instigators or masterminds of crimes committed during the Bush Administration are not judicially prosecuted we will never have peace or prosperity in the USA. Obama's parole Reach-Out, bi-partisan policies (Bush was saying the same thing and doing just the opposite) is the biggest BS. This will destroy or at least muddle up his reforms to say least.
it's sad to see intellect discussing such frivolous topics at the moment, as the same-sex marriages while there are far more pressing, and urgent dangers to the civil society, human rights and democratic values. As architects you should know by now the laws of statics related to the Newton Laws in physics - you first build a structure and to do this you build solid foundation.
it's sad to see intellects discussing at the moment, such frivolous topics as, the same-sex marriages while there are far more pressing, and urgent dangers to the civil society, human rights and democratic values. As architects you should know by now the laws of statics related to the Newton Laws in physics - you first build a structure and to do this you build solid foundation.
So what's your point, Poczatek? Are you insinuating that all war protesters are mental patients? Or are you sending this story just for yuks?
Incidentallym, Michelle Malkin succumbs in the worst way to inductive logical fallacy, in almost all of her opinions (link). Her current obsession is with illegal immigrants that have caused harm to others. The fallacy she seems to be making is that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a much higher rate than citizens, which isn't necessarily true. I.e., because X is an illegal immigrant, and because X committed a crime, all illegal immigrants are criminals.
She seems to be implying the same with anti-war protesters.
"The kind of humility that [Chief Justice] Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party." from the New Yorker.
JESUS CHRIST I am so flipping tired of Dick Cheney! Why won't he just go away! He's like a damned broken record! Hey Dick, is there any chance you can go to your secure undisclosed location and STAY THERE!?!
is there a precedent for a former Pres or VP being so outspoken in opposition so quickly after leaving office?
im unsure what i think about it... if a senator or rep were saying these things it would be everyday policy bickering. But when its the VP, only 4 months removed from office bringing the scathing attacks, i begin to wonder what his REAL motivation is. Is he scared of falling out of the spot light? Is he scared of being powerless? or is he actually scared by the obamas foreign policy direction? And if that is the case, if he is genuinely concerned, should he be showing more deference to the current pres?
No, there is no precedent. Dick Cheney is the tackiest, least-liked vice president in our history.
I personally love to see his sneering mug on the news, because I think it just reinforces to the world how, for eight years, a paranoid, torturing, lying administration governed the country and forced itself upon the world.
I also hope that he keeps promoting the fictitious link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Just makes him look even more evil.
There is no precedent because this is the most incompetent, mock administration in the history of the United States - apparently it takes a former VP to articulate reality for them.
I just read a study, out in Science magazine that says that the Bush administration was objectively "the most incompetent, mock administration in the history of the United States."
Not only does Science have graphs that prove it, but they cite physicists and geneticists who prove once and for all that the Bush administration was the "most incompetent, mock administration in the history of the United States."
It's at least twenty-two percentage points more incompetent than the Obama administration, and three percentage points more incompetent than the Nixon administration.
I wouldnt worry about it K. I dont think there is much doubt that Cheney will be remembered as one of the most vile, mendacious figures in the history of the united states. Hes been a weasel his whole career. Hes wrong, and has been wrong, willfully, on just about every topic weve had the misfortune to hear him lobworm his mite-like intellect upon. Every time he slithers out to contort that facial sludge-hole of his, he only reminds rational americans what intellectual dregs the republicans have devolved into.
I get the feeling that Cheney might be the new Confederacy...
In the years to come, his policies will be selectively advocated and his actions will be selectively mythologized. And in the end, we'll end up with a large group of people idolizing a man that another large group of people find abhorrent.
Appropriately, in this day in age where the world is shrinking and geographical boundaries become less restrictive, the Cheney phenomenon will separate the believers from the non believers down ideological lines... not regional lines.
Chenenities (as i will call them) should get to work making a sweet flag they can fly from their cars and homes.
I dont know. Maybe Im a sucker. But that press conference he gave today was all class. No weeping wife, no hollow platitudes or feigned apologies. So fine, sneaking off to argentina to visit the goomah on fathers day, not so much. And I love watching republicans faceplant as much as the next hipster. But really, honestly? I just dont really care that much. Its an odd era, where that burning eye of the klieglight burnishes every twitch of the eye into some monumental signal of a persons character. And with a guy like Edwards, yknow, fuck'im. Dudes a phoney, always was, and he slimed his way through his personal life with the same fawning ooze he laid down on the campaign trail. But Sanford? I dont know.. I kind of have to feel for the guy. I mean, people have real lives, people fall in love and people fuck up. What can you say? Does it affect his political philosophy or administrative policy? I dont know, it just doesnt seem relevant to me.
What does rip my shit up is fucking John McCain and the Blundersquad waxing all self-rightgeous about Iran and calling Obama a coward for having some fucking tact. I mean, if only we had mr. Bomb-bomb-Iran in right now! The Ayatolla would flee into the desert crying in his beard over our overwhelming show of empty flag-waving bluster! Hey, how about, you fuckers had the last 8 years to fuck up the world, now you can do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.
The Implosion of the Republican Party (hang on while I get some popcorn...)
The founding fathers were terrorists.
your mom is a terrorist.
your dog totally just al-qaeda'd on my lawn.
lletdownl said:
"either way... your quote said that gay marriage was frowned upon by the vast majority of the middle... thats just 100% false.."
That's not what my quote said, nor was what I said 100% false...there you go again with the percentages....
Don't misquote me or reconstruct what I said to suit your argument, which can only be backed-up with percentages you've made-up.
Thanks.
What you are doing is interpreting a lack of support as Opposition, and that's a toxic, antagonistic way of trying to reason with people....just because someone prefers blue, does not mean they oppose brown - you can't fill-in the holes of a premise with whatever you want.
ok, you said that same sex marriage was "despised" by the middle... and then later you said that it was an 80/20 split worldwide against gay marriage...
the poll i supplied pretty thoroughly negated the notion that the middle despises gay marriage...
as for the 80/20 split, im fairly certain that is a made up number as well.
i suppose it was your choice of words... 'that the middle clearly despises' which i found wildly inaccurate.
honestly, though this feels like a useless tangent, its actually quite telling. Whichever way you slice the numbers, which ever polls you look at, the demographic in this debate which is growing is the demographic that is OK with gay marriage. The demographic which is shrinking is the demographic that 'despises' gay marriage. Everyone here knows the general party affiliations of those 2 demographics...
@lletdownl:
What are you talking about? I never said "despised".
Man - you need to stop Misquoting me....
Also, this might help you think, as it illustrates how your brain works:
Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
(I meant to type Middle-East where you read "despises"....I'll give you that one)
If it is true, Im actually surprised worldwide support is so high. Gay rights isnt really a well known push in the developing world.
ah, ok... well yes, youre probably right that the majority of the mid east dislikes gay marriage... glad you didnt mean that you believed the middle despised gay marriage...that would have been too difficult to lay off and id have probably ended up calling you bad names or something
evilp, you stepped over a line by calling WonderK that name, especially when most here are trying to have a discussion and not resorting to name-calling.
I thought it was pretty funny - people need to lighten up around here.
Actually, it was plain offensive.
yeah evilplatypoop... stop being mean!
BAM! all even, now lets get back to partisan bickering!
platypoops - love it
partisan bickering FTL - let the thread die
Wonder Krotch! Aw, evilp, did you miss me? :o)
Yeah I had to step out....I've got family and WonderMan coming into town for my graduation so I'm a bit busy. Plus I need to practice my speech.
Speaking of family, my right-wing neo-con cousin (god love him) sent me a 4-paragraph email earlier with the subject line "Why do liberals hate women?". I typically don't respond when he baits me in this way. I don't like wasting my time, generally speaking, trying to reason with someone who thinks this way, and whose mind I will never change. If I were to respond seriously, I would say, "we don't hate women, as I am one, we just hate hypocrites." The snarky side of me wants to say "we don't hate women we just hate robots, i.e. Ann Coulter".
What do you guys in the peanut gallery think? Should I say anything back? Do conservatives really think that liberals "hate" women all of a sudden? Or is this another crazy fringe thing? (I'm being serious here, so please refrain from any further creative destruction of my name :o)
as much as wingnuts degrade and attack women and the choices they make, he thinks that liberals hate women?!?
Yeah, holz, it has something to do with Sarah Palin and the whole Carrie Prejean thing. I didn't really look at any of the links he sent because, I just don't care.
Wow!
Roberta McCain speaks out on Rush on the Tonight Show
You can't mess with a 97-year-old woman!
I wish people knew me as Wonder Krotch...
Funny Story, but please focus on the story and Not Michelle Malkin:
Anti-War Marine Turns Out to be Lying Mental Patient
Just a response to the aforementioned topic: politicians are like rats (universal definition), they are first to leave sinking ship. Alas, republicans leaving in droves Republican Party. However, if instigators or masterminds of crimes committed during the Bush Administration are not judicially prosecuted we will never have peace or prosperity in the USA. Obama's parole Reach-Out, bi-partisan policies (Bush was saying the same thing and doing just the opposite) is the biggest BS. This will destroy or at least muddle up his reforms to say least.
it's sad to see intellect discussing such frivolous topics at the moment, as the same-sex marriages while there are far more pressing, and urgent dangers to the civil society, human rights and democratic values. As architects you should know by now the laws of statics related to the Newton Laws in physics - you first build a structure and to do this you build solid foundation.
it's sad to see intellects discussing at the moment, such frivolous topics as, the same-sex marriages while there are far more pressing, and urgent dangers to the civil society, human rights and democratic values. As architects you should know by now the laws of statics related to the Newton Laws in physics - you first build a structure and to do this you build solid foundation.
So what's your point, Poczatek? Are you insinuating that all war protesters are mental patients? Or are you sending this story just for yuks?
Incidentallym, Michelle Malkin succumbs in the worst way to inductive logical fallacy, in almost all of her opinions (link). Her current obsession is with illegal immigrants that have caused harm to others. The fallacy she seems to be making is that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a much higher rate than citizens, which isn't necessarily true. I.e., because X is an illegal immigrant, and because X committed a crime, all illegal immigrants are criminals.
She seems to be implying the same with anti-war protesters.
Tragic:
"The kind of humility that [Chief Justice] Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party." from the New Yorker.
JESUS CHRIST I am so flipping tired of Dick Cheney! Why won't he just go away! He's like a damned broken record! Hey Dick, is there any chance you can go to your secure undisclosed location and STAY THERE!?!
Why dont you go away - troll
is there a precedent for a former Pres or VP being so outspoken in opposition so quickly after leaving office?
im unsure what i think about it... if a senator or rep were saying these things it would be everyday policy bickering. But when its the VP, only 4 months removed from office bringing the scathing attacks, i begin to wonder what his REAL motivation is. Is he scared of falling out of the spot light? Is he scared of being powerless? or is he actually scared by the obamas foreign policy direction? And if that is the case, if he is genuinely concerned, should he be showing more deference to the current pres?
No, there is no precedent. Dick Cheney is the tackiest, least-liked vice president in our history.
I personally love to see his sneering mug on the news, because I think it just reinforces to the world how, for eight years, a paranoid, torturing, lying administration governed the country and forced itself upon the world.
I also hope that he keeps promoting the fictitious link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Just makes him look even more evil.
There is no precedent because this is the most incompetent, mock administration in the history of the United States - apparently it takes a former VP to articulate reality for them.
You're wrong there, Poczatek.
I just read a study, out in Science magazine that says that the Bush administration was objectively "the most incompetent, mock administration in the history of the United States."
Not only does Science have graphs that prove it, but they cite physicists and geneticists who prove once and for all that the Bush administration was the "most incompetent, mock administration in the history of the United States."
It's at least twenty-two percentage points more incompetent than the Obama administration, and three percentage points more incompetent than the Nixon administration.
I wouldnt worry about it K. I dont think there is much doubt that Cheney will be remembered as one of the most vile, mendacious figures in the history of the united states. Hes been a weasel his whole career. Hes wrong, and has been wrong, willfully, on just about every topic weve had the misfortune to hear him lobworm his mite-like intellect upon. Every time he slithers out to contort that facial sludge-hole of his, he only reminds rational americans what intellectual dregs the republicans have devolved into.
oe -- are you working on a political opinion or a biology experiment?
I get the feeling that Cheney might be the new Confederacy...
In the years to come, his policies will be selectively advocated and his actions will be selectively mythologized. And in the end, we'll end up with a large group of people idolizing a man that another large group of people find abhorrent.
Appropriately, in this day in age where the world is shrinking and geographical boundaries become less restrictive, the Cheney phenomenon will separate the believers from the non believers down ideological lines... not regional lines.
Chenenities (as i will call them) should get to work making a sweet flag they can fly from their cars and homes.
sorry to hear you are suffering from cheney derangement syndrome
Apparently, Rush Limbaugh is the spokesman these days for the Republican party. Yes people, it's THAT bad.
By the way, who is the spokesman for Democratic Party?
Bradjelina.
other than obama i guess that would be tim kaine... hes the dnc chairman now
Have these idiots not learned anything from John Edwards? Or any of the other douchenozzles that have had affairs!?
I dont know. Maybe Im a sucker. But that press conference he gave today was all class. No weeping wife, no hollow platitudes or feigned apologies. So fine, sneaking off to argentina to visit the goomah on fathers day, not so much. And I love watching republicans faceplant as much as the next hipster. But really, honestly? I just dont really care that much. Its an odd era, where that burning eye of the klieglight burnishes every twitch of the eye into some monumental signal of a persons character. And with a guy like Edwards, yknow, fuck'im. Dudes a phoney, always was, and he slimed his way through his personal life with the same fawning ooze he laid down on the campaign trail. But Sanford? I dont know.. I kind of have to feel for the guy. I mean, people have real lives, people fall in love and people fuck up. What can you say? Does it affect his political philosophy or administrative policy? I dont know, it just doesnt seem relevant to me.
if you're acting nutting like him, it's very relevant.
What does rip my shit up is fucking John McCain and the Blundersquad waxing all self-rightgeous about Iran and calling Obama a coward for having some fucking tact. I mean, if only we had mr. Bomb-bomb-Iran in right now! The Ayatolla would flee into the desert crying in his beard over our overwhelming show of empty flag-waving bluster! Hey, how about, you fuckers had the last 8 years to fuck up the world, now you can do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.
^^ Well see, hes not acting a nutter. Hes just fucking around. Mystery solved right?
I hope that Argentinian Poozy was worth it.
Oh lets face it. That guy wasnt getting the nod in 2012 anyway.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.