Church elects its first gay bishop

[Natoma]

Oh please now you're really splitting hairs. So because Mary Kewatt stated that combat was over on may 1st, she's a liar because Bush said that major combat operations were over? I think this is on the same level as those republicans you quoted in that other thread who said there had never been a republican filibuster of a judicial nominee. We all know how that one turned out. I suppose they were liars as well right? Really now....

And wrt the absurd comments, they were examples of conservative ridiculousness. Not equations to one another. I asked you to give an example of anything liberals have done that could equate with that record, and you gave the Harvey Milk School. I see you completely missed the point of my comment.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Natoma,

Good comments, thanks for responding. =)

The difference I suppose, is that I cannot, nay, will not, serve blindly, without question. If that's considered prideful, then that's fine.

Aye, I would consider his prideful. Slaves are a good example. Does the slave tell the master I will serve you IF you explain your desires to my understanding? No, the slave serves and the master commands. We are not slaves as we do have freedom of choice. You and I have exercised that freedom. I chose to follow my faith, you chose to forsake your faith. The humble servant puts no requirements and demands on his master.

No, I can't comprehend why a god would create a species in which billions are doomed to destruction before they're even born. Why?

Because the 1 year old does not comprehend how quantum mechanics works, doest that change that quantum mechanics do work? There is no requirement for the servant to fully understand and comprehend their God or His reasons. Because I cannot fully understand God, that does not make God any less real. It just means that I can't comprehend Him. I have no issues with my inability to comprehend an all knowing all being God.

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Oh please now you're really splitting hairs. So because Mary Kewatt stated that combat was over on may 1st, she's a liar because Bush said that major combat operations were over?

Um, yes. She also said "combat was not not over", directly implying that Bush believed they were. But then, you were never a stickler for accuracy and quoting within context...unless of course you are under the impression that YOU are the victim of such atrocities...then all hell breaks loose, right?

And wrt the absurd comments, they were examples of conservative ridiculousness.

As is the public funding of an institution that dicriminates based on sexual orientation.

And no, it's not on the same level as the "ridiculous" as Jim Crow, but neither is the Patriot Act. That's the point. You want an example of liberal ridiculousness on a similar level? The support of affirmative action quotas and point systems for college admissions policies. How they all come out of the woodwork and comdemned the President's position that all racial discrimination is bad...

 

[Natoma]

Dr. Ffreeze,

If we truly are creatures of free will, then we should be given all of the details that we require to make up our mind. If I have a question as to why this is so, and it's not answered, how can I make an informed decision?

I require certain answers to questions that completely nag at my intellect to believe. You may say this is a lack of faith, and I would agree, but I have found that faith in general is something to be earned, not given freely, when there is a penalty/reward at the end.

Besides, after looking at the scriptures and reading that the bible has to be taken in its entirety or none at all (similar to someone saying "take it or leave it"), I chose to do none. I consider it hypocritical to believe in the bible, but not follow all of the tenets it espouses, even the ones that are contradictory by nature. But that's just me I suppose.

Btw, if we are indeed to limited to understand and comprehend god, then it is up to god to give us the ability to understand is it not? How else can we make a decision on what we truly want?

 

[Natoma]

Oh please now you're really splitting hairs. So because Mary Kewatt stated that combat was over on may 1st, she's a liar because Bush said that major combat operations were over?

Um, yes. She also said "combat was not not over", directly implying that Bush believed they were. But then, you were never a stickler for accuracy and quoting within context...unless of course you are under the impression that YOU are the victim of such atrocities...then all hell breaks loose, right?

So then I guess the republicans were indeed lying about never having filibustered judicial nominees. And I suppose you are not a stickler for accuracy either with the quotes you use.

And wrt the absurd comments, they were examples of conservative ridiculousness.

As is the public funding of an institution that dicriminates based on sexual orientation.

And no, it's not on the same level as the "ridiculous" as Jim Crow, but neither is the Patriot Act. That's the point. You want an example of liberal ridiculousness on a similar level? The support of affirmative action quotas and point systems for college admissions policies. How they all come out of the woodwork and comdemned the President's position that all racial discrimination is bad...

And as I said before, I never made the equation between them. I gave examples. I asked you to give an equation. Big difference. The institution is setup to handle specific cases, i.e. abuse due to sexual orientation, just as there are institutions setup to handle specific cases of child abuse or spousal abuse or rape or drug abuse. All of these cases are specific to a particular demographic/need, and they all receive public funding. I don't consider that discriminatory at all.

Btw, if I recall correctly, conservatives have no issue supporting legacy point systems for college admissions. I mean, how else would Dubya have gotten where he was in life without legacy? And everyone seems fine with geographic point systems for college admissions. So, yea.... :?

Now as I've said earlier, if we remove all points from the equation, meaning legacy, geography, race, gender, et al, I would be perfectly fine with that.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So then I guess the republicans were indeed lying about never having filibustered judicial nominees.

And what does this have to do with anything?

[edit, after you edited your post with this quote: "And I suppose you are not a stickler for accuracy either with the quotes you use. "]

Um, my quote was accurate. The point is, you don't see me putting those quotes from said republicans about filibusters in my signature, do you?

And as I said before...

And I heard your argument and gave my own response to it. What's the point of re-hashing it?

Btw, if I recall correctly, conservatives have no issue supporting legacy point systems for college admissions.

Says who? Here's one conservative that has issues with PUBLIC institutions doing so.

I mean, how else would Dubya have gotten where he was in life without legacy? And everyone seems fine with geographic point systems for college admissions. So, yea.... :?

Who says everyone is fine with any of this? The only "geographic" point system I have no qualms with is one where the geography determines the funding. In other words, I, as a resident of NJ, can be given preferential treatment to a NJ state school, over a non NJ resident. (And I can be given unfavorable treatment towards a NY School).

So yeah, we're back to the same ridiculous liberal argument:
Racism is EVIL! Unless of course we benefit from it.

 

[Natoma]

So then I guess the republicans were indeed lying about never having filibustered judicial nominees.

And what does this have to do with anything?

[edit, after you edited your post with this quote: "And I suppose you are not a stickler for accuracy either with the quotes you use. "]

Um, my quote was accurate. The point is, you don't see me putting those quotes from said republicans about filibusters in my signature, do you?

Uhm, you said that Mary Kewatt is a liar because she said that Bush stated that combat was over on May 1st when Bush said that major combat operations were over.

So obviously this would make the Republicans liars because they said that Republicans had never filibustered judicial nominees before. I mean, you're the one that came out questioning me if I was calling Bill Frist's right hand man a liar. I merely said that I didn't know if he was outright lying or misinformed. So no, your quote was most certainly not accurate. And btw, Bush did indeed say "Bring it on." That is most certainly accurate.

But you have no predilection toward calling someone an outright liar do you? Apparently not.

Btw, if I recall correctly, conservatives have no issue supporting legacy point systems for college admissions.

Says who? Here's one conservative that has issues with PUBLIC institutions doing so.

By making a huge fuss over racial points, but nothing over legacy points, even when given the chance to speak on those issues, all the while screaming about discrimination (see bush's comments to the supreme court wrt the michigan case), is implicit in and of itself.

I mean, how else would Dubya have gotten where he was in life without legacy? And everyone seems fine with geographic point systems for college admissions. So, yea.... :?

Who says everyone is fine with any of this? The only "geographic" point system I have no qualms with is one where the geography determines the funding. In other words, I, as a resident of NJ, can be given preferential treatment to a NJ state school, over a non NJ resident. (And I can be given unfavorable treatment towards a NY School).

So yeah, we're back to the same ridiculous liberal argument:
Racism is EVIL! Unless of course we benefit from it.

Indeed racism is evil. And see my prior post for this liberal's particular solution to the problem.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Natoma,

If we truly are creatures of free will, then we should be given all of the details that we require to make up our mind.

Again, I see this a making demands on my Lord and Savior. Where do you think you get these rights? Who said you should be given all the details? I do not see that as being a humble servants, but being a prideful man.

I love to read fantasy novels, so run with me on this. =) Running into a awe inspiring, glowing, talking, magical dragon in the woods that was the size of 10 elephants would humble me. He is great big an powerful, I am all of 145 lbs. I would not launch into speech that included many demands, quite the contrary. I am nothing to him as he could swat me like a fly. Much like a fly's life is nothing to me. Those that are humble do not make demands....

Well, that is a terrible example. For some reason I just can't communicate how much greater and awe inspiring the Lord is than me. I therefore cannot communicate how wrong I think it is to put conditions on your faith or belief and I cannot communicate how because of this man is being so utterly prideful.

/sigh
Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So obviously this would make the Republicans liars...

No, that would make certain particular republicans liars (or just ignorant)..

because they said that Republicans had never filibustered judicial nominees before.

Unless he was talking about successfully filibustering appellate nominees, in which case the reporter took his quotes out of context. (But that's OK, right?0

But you have no predilection toward calling someone an outright liar do you? Apparently not.

Sorry Natoma...she's either outright lying, or outright misinformed. Take your pick. Again, the point is, I'm not the one putting quotes from either of these people in my sig.

My quote is from you, and from an honest, direct summation of your viewpoint at the onset of a debate. (Unless you're calling yourself a liar.)

By making a huge fuss over racial points, but nothing over legacy points...

Um, when someone brings a law-suit to the Supreme Court over other types of discrimination, we'll make a fuss about it then. So talking about it and agreeing with you otherwise is somehow not sufficient? Grow up.

Did Bush bring this case to the Supreme Court?

Yet more hypocricy coming from someone who practices this very thing...or was it not you who has "no issue" with polygamy, and yet I don't see you voicing the same outrage over the polygamists plight with marriage that you do of homosexuals? Good Grief.

Indeed racism is evil.

You forgot the "unless we benefit from it" part.

 

[Althornin]

wow.
religeon enters the equation and otherwise intelligent, rational men become raving fanatics, supporting their claims with statements that are designed to be unproveable.

And you ask why i look down on practitioners.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

wow.
religeon enters the equation and otherwise intelligent, rational men become raving fanatics, supporting their claims with statements that are designed to be unproveable.

And you ask why i look down on practitioners.

Don't look at me...I'm in the other side debate.

Although I will say one thing wrt that debate and then bow out: It's called "FAITH" for a reason...

 

[Natoma]

because they said that Republicans had never filibustered judicial nominees before.

Unless he was talking about successfully filibustering appellate nominees, in which case the reporter took his quotes out of context. (But that's OK, right?0

Oooooh now he was quoted out of context? Well gee. Maybe Mary Kewatt was quoted out of context? I think it's safe to say that this bit of argumentation needs to be shut down.

But you have no predilection toward calling someone an outright liar do you? Apparently not.

Sorry Natoma...she's either outright lying, or outright misinformed. Take your pick. Again, the point is, I'm not the one putting quotes from either of these people in my sig.

Did or did not Dubya state "Bring it on" to the iraqis who would attempt to fight against US forces? That is neither lying nor misinformation. He said it.

My quote is from you, and from an honest, direct summation of your viewpoint at the onset of a debate. (Unless you're calling yourself a liar.)

And so is my quote from Mary Kewatt. Again, I consider this situation moot. You can do whatever it is you wish

By making a huge fuss over racial points, but nothing over legacy points...

Um, when someone brings a law-suit to the Supreme Court over other types of discrimination, we'll make a fuss about it then. So talking about it and agreeing with you otherwise is somehow not sufficient? Grow up.

Did Bush bring this case to the Supreme Court?

Yet more hypocricy coming from someone who practices this very thing...or was it not you agrees that polygamy is perfectly fine, and yet I don't see you voicing the same outrage over the polygamists plight that you do of homosexuals? Good Grief.

Hey if he's going to speak about the evils of discrimination in his address to the supreme court should he not also speak about the legacy system that got him into college? Should he not, at the very least as a foot note, state that he believes that all forms of points should be removed from the educational system, including legacy?

He is the president after all, and his voice is heard by all.

And of course I'm not fighting for polygamy at the moment (though I did address how I feel on the subject, and continue to do so when it comes up). I spend far too much energy arguing with numbnuts like you who have completely illogical viewpoints toward homosexuality.

Indeed racism is evil.

You forgot the "unless we benefit from it" part.

You forgot "And see my prior post for this liberal's particular solution to the problem."

 

[Natoma]

Natoma,

If we truly are creatures of free will, then we should be given all of the details that we require to make up our mind.

Again, I see this a making demands on my Lord and Savior. Where do you think you get these rights? Who said you should be given all the details? I do not see that as being a humble servants, but being a prideful man.

I never said I was a humble servant. I don't follow people unless I truly believe in the cause or the reason to do so. But to believe in a cause, I need reasons.

The reason of eternal damnation unless I comply is not enough for me to follow the god of christianity. You don't threaten people into following you. You give them good reason to.

I love to read fantasy novels, so run with me on this. =) Running into a awe inspiring, glowing, talking, magical dragon in the woods that was the size of 10 elephants would humble me. He is great big an powerful, I am all of 145 lbs. I would not launch into speech that included many demands, quite the contrary. I am nothing to him as he could swat me like a fly. Much like a fly's life is nothing to me. Those that are humble do not make demands....

So basically you're doing it out of fear then, for what this god will do to you if you don't comply with its demands. Frankly, I don't consider that a recipe for willing servitude.

Well, that is a terrible example. For some reason I just can't communicate how much greater and awe inspiring the Lord is than me. I therefore cannot communicate how wrong I think it is to put conditions on your faith or belief and I cannot communicate how because of this man is being so utterly prideful.

/sigh
Dr. Ffreeze

I understand why you feel the way you do. You don't need to communicate it because I grew up in it, and around it. I just don't agree with it.

Now bear in mind, if it turns out that the christian way of things is indeed the way things occurred, and I stand before god at the end of time, I will accept my punishment completely and say to god the same thing I say to you. I cannot serve without good reason or proof of why I'm following. I cannot follow blindly. If that condemns me to eternity of torture then so be it.

However, this is of course if it turns out the christian way of things is indeed the way things are. It could turn out to be like it is in the muslim faith, or the hindu faith, or buddhism, or Taoism.

Or it could turn out that there's nothing at all like we perceive and everyone is wrong. Or it could turn out that we just disappear into nothingness. Who knows. But I'll take my chances and live my life as best as I can, without fear of reprisal from some god that may or may not exist.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Oooooh now he was quoted out of context? Well gee. Maybe Mary Kewatt was quoted out of context? I think it's safe to say that this bit of argumentation needs to be shut down.

Yup, it can be...so then we agree that either Mary Kewatt was lying, mininformed, or quoted out of context....but don't let that stop you from using her or the souce that quoted her for your sig. Do what you must.

Did or did not Dubya state "Bring it on" to the iraqis who would attempt to fight against US forces? That is neither lying nor misinformation.

Yup, and if I were in the ARmed forces, that's exactly the attitude I'd want to hear my commander-in-chief to have.

And my quote of you is neither lying nore misinformation. (Or did you not say that, or was it not your line of argumentation?)

The point is, what is your issue with my quote of you, if you have no issue with your quote?

And so is my quote from Mary Kewatt. Again, I consider this situation moot. You can do whatever it is you wish

Great...then why are we having this conversation again? You said that about 10 posts ago, and yet here we are...jabbering away.

You consider the Mary K quote "legit", and you consdier my quote of you legit, right? So what's the issue here?

Hey if he's going to speak about the evils of discrimination in his address to the supreme court should he not also speak about the legacy system that got him into college?

Why? What on earth does that have to do with the facts of the case at hand?

And of course I'm not fighting for polygamy at the moment. I spend far too much energy arguing with numbnuts like you who have completely illogical viewpoints toward homosexuality.

Lol...and Bush is not fighting "legacy discrimination at public institutions" at the moment...he's too busy fighting leftist whackos who don't want to abide by the same rules they demand of everyone else.

You forgot "And see my prior post for this liberal's particular solution to the problem."

Not at all. I wasn't under the impression that it's OK to codify evil for personal self gain.

 

[Natoma]

wow.
religeon enters the equation and otherwise intelligent, rational men become raving fanatics, supporting their claims with statements that are designed to be unproveable.

And you ask why i look down on practitioners.

I don't look down on practitioners for having their faith, because frankly I used to be a practitioner of that faith. However, I do not abide well the practitioners of particular faiths who would do everything in their power to ruin my life and the lives of millions of other people. That's where I draw the line.

 

[Natoma]

Oooooh now he was quoted out of context? Well gee. Maybe Mary Kewatt was quoted out of context? I think it's safe to say that this bit of argumentation needs to be shut down.

Yup, it can be...so then we agree that either Mary Kewatt was lying, mininformed, or quoted out of context....but don't let that stop you from using her or the souce that quoted her for your sig. Do what you must.

I fail to see how a comment about the "Bring it on" statement is in anyway false like the republican "we've never filibustered judicial nominees!" comments. But whatever.

Did or did not Dubya state "Bring it on" to the iraqis who would attempt to fight against US forces? That is neither lying nor misinformation.

Yup, and if I were in the ARmed forces, that's exactly the attitude I'd want to hear my commander-in-chief to have.

If I were in the armed forces, I would not want my commander-in-chief to make statements to the enemy inviting them to attack. You must have a death wish. I certainly do not.

Your statement is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard or read wrt those comments from bush. Maybe I should put it in my sig.

And my quote of you is neither lying nore misinformation. (Or did you not say that, or was it not your line of argumentation?)

The point is, what is your issue with my quote of you, if you have no issue with your quote?

I said that I don't quote people from message boards in my sigs, even when they say things that i completely disagree with or are completely ridiculous. If that were the case, I'd have filled up my sig by now with stupid shit I hear people say all the time, some of which comes directly from you.

And so is my quote from Mary Kewatt. Again, I consider this situation moot. You can do whatever it is you wish

Great...then why are we having this conversation again? You said that about 10 posts ago, and yet here we are...jabbering away.

You consider the Mary K quote "legit", and you consdier my quote of you legit, right? So what's the issue here?

Maybe because you called Mary K a liar, and how I feel so comfortable quoting liars? If I recall correctly, that's how this particular part of this "discussion" got extended. I then brought up your use of those quotes from the republicans who could also be called liars, and how you feel so comfortable quoting liars.

Hey if he's going to speak about the evils of discrimination in his address to the supreme court should he not also speak about the legacy system that got him into college?

Why? What on earth does that have to do with the facts of the case at hand?

The facts of the case deal with admissions-based discrimination. Legacy is part of admissions-based discrimination.

You forgot "And see my prior post for this liberal's particular solution to the problem."

Not at all. I wasn't under the impression that it's OK to codify evil for personal self gain.

Neither was I. Why is it again that the University of Michigan also has legacy as a "point" on its system?

But to completely cut this off and hope that there's no need to bring it up again simply for a tit-for-tat, I think we should get rid of all the points in the system. No more gender preferences. No more legacy. No more race. No more geography. Get rid of all of these, and fix the reasons for inequal education at the state and local level by bringing all the schools up to snuff.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I fail to see how a comment about the "Bring it on" statement is in anyway false like the republican "we've never filibustered judicial nominees!" comments. But whatever.

And I fail to see how my quote of you is any different...but whatever.

If I were in the armed forces, I would not want my commander-in-chief to make statements to the enemy inviting them to attack. You must have a death wish. I certainly do not.

That's because if you think Bush is actually intending to "inviting" an attack that would not otherwise come, then you would be an idiot, or a partisan hack. I certainly want my leadership, in whatever I do, to display their confidence that I can get the job done. That's exactly what Bush was doing.

Is it understandable that his quote can be taken out of context like you have? Yeah, I can see that.

But ask yourself an honest question: do you really think that either

1) Bush was actually asking opposing forces to attack us
2) opposing forces would not have attacked if not for those comments.

I mean, really...

Your statement is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from someone who hasn't served in the military wrt those comments. Maybe I should put it in my sig.

And your assertion that the President, or anyone for that matter other than our enemies, actually wants our troops to be attacked....sigh...

I said that I don't quote people from message boards in my sigs, even when they say things that i completely disagree with or are completely ridiculous. If that were the case, I'd have filled up my sig by now with stupid shit I hear people say all the time, some of which comes directly from you.

And I said I do quote people when it be done in a succint, direct, and honestly representaive manner.

So we have different standards. I just believe one based on honesty is more honorable than one based on whether or not the person might read it.

Maybe because you called Mary K a liar, and how I feel so comfortable quoting liars?

Well, if you're not comfortable, don't do it, or recant it once you are made aware of it. (Or you can take the third route, ignore it.)

The facts of the case deal with admissions-based discrimination.

Wrong. The facts of this case deal with a specific person who brought a specific case of racial discrimination.

Legacy is part of admissions-based discrimination.

Legacy has nothing to do with the plaintiff's complaint, nor the defense's arguments, for that matter. "It's OK because there's other discrimination" is your own conconction.

Neither was I. Why is it again that the University of Michigan also has legacy as a "point" on its system?

No idea.

But to completely cut this off and hope that there's no need to bring it up again simply for a tit-for-tat, I think we should get rid of all the points in the system.

Right...just not race at this point in time..

Of course, you just fail to see the utter hopelessness of that line of thinking, because if we apply it to all "points in the system"....NONE of them will ever go away as each one is individually challenged in individual court cases. "But thre's still THIS issue, so that justifies my own pet advantage."

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Natoma,

Well, that is a terrible example.

So basically you're doing it out of fear then, for what this god will do to you if you don't comply with its demands. Frankly, I don't consider that a recipe for willing servitude.

As I said, it was a terrible example. I don't believe or follow my faith out of fear. I couldn't think of much of anything that might create humbleness for an analogy. I myself am not nearly as humble as I would like. I take too much credit for my own success. /sigh

I understand why you feel the way you do. You don't need to communicate it because I grew up in it, and around it. I just don't agree with it.

Ok, cool that you understand. It is well within your rights to disagree. =)

Althornin,

In all things that are based on reason and facts, I am quite the rational person. I am very scientific and very particular. When religion enters the equation, reason and rationalization don't play a strong role because religion is based on faith. Faith is based on belief without proof. My supporting arguments are not designed to be unproveable, that is just the way I believe. I really don't try to manipulate things for my benefit or my belief's benefit. I just share my beliefs how they are. I don't think I was raving, but that is just me. =)

I shared my thoughts with Natoma, someone that was of my same faith, but then renounced it. I find his reasons both interesting and perplexing. (There we are again, I found something else interesting) He has been kind enough to share his thoughts with me. I in no way got onto these boards to stand on the pulpit. I am in no way qualified for that, I am just interested in hearing what others of different opinion think so I can come to a better understanding of my own beliefs. This inquisitiveness is not just limited to religion, it is very much interwoven in all things of my life.

And you ask why i look down on practitioners.

That is a sad. On these boards I have never said things out of malicious, hate, or spite. I have never looked down upon another even if we don't agree. Heck, differences in people is a great spice of life. I learn SO much more form those that don't share the same opinion as I do. I understand, or think I do, where you are coming from as I have a very scientific and logical mind. If I had no faith, I would not really understand all these religious types. It is easy for me to understand the "show me" "prove it to me" attitude. It just is kind of sad that people look down upon me because of the beliefs I have. Intolerance is a sad thing.

Natoma,

I don't look down on practitioners for having their faith

Thankx =)

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Natoma]

I fail to see how a comment about the "Bring it on" statement is in anyway false like the republican "we've never filibustered judicial nominees!" comments. But whatever.

And I fail to see how my quote of you is any different...but whatever.

I never stated that your quote of me was false. That was never in contention. In fact I also stated that I was mistaken wrt my statement. I merely stated that I don't quote people from forums. That is my particular opinion on the subject, as I stated earlier.

If I were in the armed forces, I would not want my commander-in-chief to make statements to the enemy inviting them to attack. You must have a death wish. I certainly do not.

That's because if you think Bush is actually intending to "inviting" an attack that would not otherwise come, then you would be an idiot. I certainly want my leadership, in whatever I do, to display their confidence that I can get the job done. That's exactly what Bush was doing.

Of course I don't believe Bush actually intends that. But you don't think the enemy who would be doing the attacking is necessarily that "smart" do you? Those types of comments are purely irresponsible from the recognized leader of the armed forces.

Is it understandable that his quote can be taken out of context like you have? Yeah, I can see that.

Here's the full text of Bush's comments:

"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on," Bush said. "We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

You tell me how that's taken out of context. He's "inviting" them to attack because we have more than enough forces to deal with anything. You tell me how that's taken out of context.

But ask yourself an honest question: do you really think that either

1) Bush was actually asking opposing forces to attack us
2) opposing forces would not have attacked if not for those comments.

I mean, really...

Whether or not I truly believe those comments would or would not have an impact on the fighting is moot. The president of the most powerful country in the world should not make idiotic comments like that, publicly "inviting" the enemy to attack our troops, whether in jest, hilarity, trying to make a metaphor, or whatever.

What would be the difference if the police chief of your city went on television and held a press conference, and one of the things he said was "There are some in the criminal element who believe they can attack citizens in this city. My answer to them is bring it on. We have more than enough cops to handle the situation."

You would not feel the least bit perturbed by that kind of commentary from the leader of police, who are supposed to be working to protect, not potentially put in harms way?

Your statement is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from someone who hasn't served in the military wrt those comments. Maybe I should put it in my sig.

And your assertion that the President, or anyone for that matter other than our enemies, actually wants our troops to be attacked....sigh...

And I never said that they want our troops to be attacked. Did I.

I said that I don't quote people from message boards in my sigs, even when they say things that i completely disagree with or are completely ridiculous. If that were the case, I'd have filled up my sig by now with stupid shit I hear people say all the time, some of which comes directly from you.

And I said I do quote people when it be done in a succint, direct, and honestly representaive manner.

So we have different standards. I just believe one based on honesty is more honorable than one based on whether or not the person might read it.

My quote is based on honesty. Complete honesty. You show me anywhere where it is false.

Maybe because you called Mary K a liar, and how I feel so comfortable quoting liars?

Well, if you're not comfortable, don't do it, or recant it once you are made aware of it. (Or you can take the third route, ignore it.)

I never said I was comfortable or not. I merely said that calling her a liar is ridiculous. And then trying to say that I feel comfortable about it or not is equally ridiculous. You made that quote from the Republicans wrt the filibuster issue and pushed it wholeheartedly.

Do YOU recant because you have been made aware that their statements were lies, or at least misinformed?

And this doesn't get past the point that her statement is not a statement of fact. It is a statement wrt Bush telling the enemy to bring it on. Well they brought it on, and now her nephew is dead. You tell me where that's false.

The facts of the case deal with admissions-based discrimination.

Wrong. The facts of this case deal with a specific person who brought a specific case of racial discrimination.

And the white house briefing spoke about discrimination being wrong.

The motivation for such an admissions policy may be very good, but its result is discrimination, and that discrimination is wrong

Now this can be interpreted in one of two ways. Either Bush believes discrimination in all forms is wrong, even if the motivation is good, or he believes that only race based discrimination is wrong, and legacy is fine, by proxy.

Legacy is part of admissions-based discrimination.

Legacy has nothing to do with the plaintiff's complaint, nor the defense's arguments, for that matter. "It's OK because there's other discrimination" is your own conconction.

Oh noo. But bush is speaking on the wrongness of discrimination. And legacy is also discrimination. So if it's wrong because it is a form of discrimination, he needs to say something about it as well. Right?

But to completely cut this off and hope that there's no need to bring it up again simply for a tit-for-tat, I think we should get rid of all the points in the system.

Right...just not race at this point in time..

When did I say that. Eh? I said that we should get rid of all points in the system. How does that magically conjure up "just not race at this point in time" by your train of logic? What about the word all don't you seem to understand?

 

[Natoma]

Oh and btw, it turns out the "sexual harrassment" was nothing at all.

Scruton said the other encounter occurred when Lewis turned to make a comment to Robinson and the clergyman “touched the individual’s forearm and back while responding with his own comment.â€￾

http://www.msnbc.com/news/947847.asp?0cv=CA01

So yea, touching someone's arm or back while you're speaking to them is sexual harrassment. That's why the guy backed off and it cleared the way for the priest's confirmation. What did the guy write in the email wrt keeping the priest from being confirmed?

Lewis said Robinson “put his hands on me inappropriatelyâ€￾ at a church event “a couple of years agoâ€￾ and described himself as “a straight man reporting homosexual harassment.â€￾

Sounds to me like he was just uncomfortable with the idea of a gay man touching him.

Well, anyways I'm glad this situation is cleared up and the episcopalians can get back to their infighting about it and leave the rest of us out of the situation.