Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,468 Year: 3,725/9,624 Month: 596/974 Week: 209/276 Day: 49/34 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How accurate is this email?
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 93 (385634)
02-16-2007 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
02-16-2007 1:22 PM


You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
Generally speaking, sure. What's your point?
You have to believe that businesses create oppression but governments create prosperity.
Not really, no.
You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran , China and/or North Korea.
Nope, not accurate. In fact, you'll probably hear most liberals say how stupid it was for Bush to invade Iraq, thus prompting Iran and North Korea to restart their nuclear programs.
You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
No, just that more art is a good thing, so it should probably be funded.
You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.
No. You realize that cyclical changes in the earth's climate are gonna happen, and therefore it's stupid to send them all out of whack by pumping noxious gases into the air.
You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
Sure. What's your point?
You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
Nope. Just that blocking funding to the research of any disease hampers the ability to find a vaccine.
Seems like common sense to me.
You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
Nope. You believe that we should pump money into the schools so we can effectively teach children to read. While they're there, it's probably a good idea for them to learn about sex.
You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.
It is crazy to assume that those who are crazy about the life of animals care more about nature than those who shoot them, I'll give you that.
You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something that might merit it.
Not really sure where that's even coming from, so no.
You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports gutting certain parts of the Constitution.
Nope. In fact, although I think the NRA is a bunch of gun-obsessed weirdos, I do think that as long as the 2nd amendment is on the books, it should be followed.
You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
Sure. I, for one, would rather my money be used for schools, and roads, and all sorts of things that will benefit me, than be pumped into building a bank manager's summer home.
Wouldn't you?
You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln.
Again, not sure where that's coming from. Are there any liberals who hate the founding fathers? (Especially Thomas Jefferson? What?)
You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
Aw, I can almost see the "straight white christian men are the ones who really have it rough" argument forming. When are you gonna get around to telling us about the time someone cracked your skull open, by the way?
You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
I would probably go ahead and disagree with any theory about socialism that doesn't get how socialism works.
You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
Nope. As has been explained to you over and over (and over and over) again, liberals don't think manger scenes should be illegal.
You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Actually, I figured it came from a giggling twit at a keyboard. But whatever.
Hope that helps.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-16-2007 1:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-16-2007 11:57 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 88 by truthlover, posted 02-21-2007 3:44 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 93 (385871)
02-17-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
02-16-2007 11:57 PM


That its ironic.
Don't see how. Perhaps you could explain it.
Generally speaking that would seem to be the case.
If you say so.
You think that Iran and North Korea have been trying to get hold of nuclear weaponry because of the invasion of Iraq? I'm not seeing the correlation. Can you connect the dots for me?
We name three countries as enemies of the US. We then invade one of them. The other two are not stupid.
By the Federal Government though?
Sure, why not?
Anthropogenic global warming is real. Its caused in part by carbon dioxide and methane gases. We should all stop breathing and eating beans in order to save the environment.
I'm sure it would be funnier if liberals actually said this. Sorry to spoil your fun.
If gender roles are artificial then wouldn't that extend to homosexuality as well?
Do you know what a gender role is? Sexuality isn't one.
But there already is an exorbitant amount of funding. Every pharmaceutical company in the world has vested interests in finding a vaccine. That's beau coup bucks for them.
Yes, now. Of course, the complaints about the federal government and AIDS research were during the eighties, when it wasn't the case.
Call me old fashion, but I think schools should be going to an actual education. Its the job of parents to teach their kids about sex, not some fruitloop that I didn't give permission to.
Congrats. We disagree. But the contradiction that amused you so much is a complete fiction.
I don't like sport hunters at all. I think its a pointless, machismo endeavor. However, I think PETA goes overboard.
Congrats. We agree. The contradiction that amused you so much is a complete fiction.
I think the writer is poking fun at the celebration of mediocrity.
I wasn't aware liberals celebrated mediocrity. Weird.
That's not how it works.
"Nuh-uh" to you too, then.
No, its just a joke. The writer is probably wondering why Sanger and Steinem are more celebrated than people who have made actual contributions to society.
Interesting. Except that, as I just said, liberals do celebrate those people, especially Jefferson. So it's a joke based on a false premise. It would be like me making jokes on how totally gay you are. Doesn't work... you're straight.
Excuse me? The time somebody cracked open my skull? I've never said anything like at all.
You responded to Jaderis' tale of getting her skull cracked open by saying, "Yeah, but most of us have experienced some sort of violence over our beliefs or even things we can't change..."
Here, if you can't remember.
I asked you to share your similar tale of woe.
Just everything else associated with Jesus then?
Exactly, NJ. Good work, well thought out. That's why we outlawed Christmas and legalized the murder of priests.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-16-2007 11:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 93 (386244)
02-20-2007 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Chiroptera
02-20-2007 1:41 PM


Re: Proposed new forum rule:
Do I get a neat title, like AdminMasochist or something?

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Chiroptera, posted 02-20-2007 1:41 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 93 (386418)
02-21-2007 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by truthlover
02-21-2007 3:44 PM


Based on only what a couple liberals said to me (so maybe my sources were the exception), I thought it was a typical liberal position that the 2nd amendment referred to militia only, not the right of individual citizens.
In a sane world, I would honestly think that anyone who read the 2nd amendment would walk away with that in mind. But that's not how the Supreme Court seems to read it, so... *shrug*
Can you explain this to me, too? I'm pretty sure I've heard real news reports about manger scenes being protested.
I'd have to see the stories in question to say anything about them. Was it just a protest by people who didn't like it, or a bonafide attempt to outlaw a tacky fiberglass assortment of Jesus-themed yard gnomes? There's a difference.
Do you just mean that they ought to be legal but not displayed in publicly owned buildings?
Basically, but even in these cases, I think there's degrees. For instance, I have no problem whatsoever with a judge putting a manger scene in his office, but have a big problem when the court erects a manger scene in the courthouse lobby, with state money.
Either way, a pretty wild difference from NJ's view of the world.
please don't take this as some sort of attack.
Don't sweat it; didn't see anything like that in your post.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by truthlover, posted 02-21-2007 3:44 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by truthlover, posted 02-21-2007 5:04 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 93 (386434)
02-21-2007 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by truthlover
02-21-2007 5:04 PM


But I have trouble seeing the difference between the militia and individual citizens, IF the 2nd amendment is really addressing the militia. If it is, then the militia is the individual citizens, and you have to give them guns and let them be the militia. That's how it was back then.
Well, that's just it... that's how it was, at a time when the King of England might come stormin' into town, and you'd have to wake everybody up to grab whatever was handy and fight him back.
(Presumably this would be the big, Japanese Mecha-KingofEngland. You know what I mean.)
At the time there was absolutely no distinction between the citizens and the militia. So the fact that, even in those times, they felt the need to point out that this was for military purposes... well, that says a thing or two about intent to me.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by truthlover, posted 02-21-2007 5:04 PM truthlover has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024