People like him are happy so long as the candidate can oomph out support for theocracy, denialism, bellicosity, and various and sundry other self-serving and deadly absurdities.
Originally posted by Louis on 6/10/2008 in another thread:
Thank you for your opinion. Please accept mine as a possible counter to your position. In so doing, please refrain from mistaking my argument as either an opinion on your personality, or an attack against your character.
How can one be mistaken, when you are not presenting an argument at all? This is obviously an attack on someone's character.
Originally posted by Louis on 6/10/2008 in another thread:
As a fellow faceless, bodiless voice in a sea of websites, I have no idea who or what you are, and can't possibly have an informed opinion about your personality
NO? Then why do you post such assumptions about what makes "people like him" happy?
Originally posted by Louis on 6/10/2008 in another thread:
... therefore, if I present something for your consideration, you can bet it has nothing to do with what I think of you
Riiiighht.
Originally posted by Louis on 6/10/2008 in another thread:
... and has everything to do with my reaction to some stated position you've offered for my consumption.
Yes, your diatribe does seem to be reactionary.
Originally posted by Louis on 6/10/2008 in another thread:
You see, since we are both in effect anonymous, I likely don't really care that much about you anyway, beyond the usual wishes for long life, happiness for you and your family, and an end to whatever particular suffering you may experience from time to time.
As a courtesy, please in kind refrain from attacking my personality because you disagree with my argument. I'm sure you already know, but this is known as an ad hominem argument, and is one of the weakest of the logical fallacies. Should you offer an ad hominem argument attacking my character or the character of others, simply because you don't like some position being presented to you, you will likely be forever discredited whenever you try to speak publicly again.
In short, whereas I'm always happy to discuss ideas, and I love a good argument from time to time -- a real argument, not a catalogue of insults -- we would all be much happier and better informed about what others think if we keep our opinions, arguments, and positions on-topic. If you wish to continue to Rant with style, you merely have to present your arguments passionately, consistently, evenly, and lucidly, while keeping cool, and without being insulted at the mere presence of contrary opinions.
This doesn't mean you shouldn't thrust and parry, and be forceful about what you say; quite the opposite. But when you begin to interpret contrary opinions as slights against you personally, your argument collapses, and your point is lost.
Stick to your position, and the characters of those you're arguing with will speak for themselves. Stay on point, and let's offer one another the courtesy and respect due to rational, mature adults.
No, that would be the people running the 5,518 local congregations of the United Church of Christ, of which this particular church is the largest. The UCC is affiliated with 7 seminaries and 18 colleges, and has a relationship of full communion with numerous other denominations. These people and organizations all recognize the church as Christian, yet you have the audacity to say, "Wright's church is not Christian at all. If you had the intellect to read a bible you would know that." So all these members, pastors, seminary students and affiliated churches combined lack the intellectual capacity to read the Bible as well as you? What an spectacularly egotistical display of bias and hatred!
Oh, NOW I remember... you're the guy who claimed Catholics aren't Christians either. I'm sure the Obama campaign would love to have someone declaring to Americans who's "really" Christian while campaigning for McCain. With the combined clout of all the people who meet your personal definition of "true" Christians, you might win the governorship of Alaska. :-/
Never said Catholics were not Christian. I said Roman Catholicism is not. I'm sure there are many who, under the false impression that Rome is Christian have been misled by the RCC, but truly in their heart love Christ.
I never judge a man's heart -- that's not our place. His actions on the other hand we are commanded to judge.
My concern is Obama's Anti Firearms policy's. How can anyone who believes in the second amendment vote for Obama? How can any gun owner vote for Obama? Then you add Biden?
My concern is Obama's Anti Firearms policy's. How can anyone who believes in the second amendment vote for Obama? How can any gun owner vote for Obama? Then you add Biden?
Thanks for proving coronamv's point and mine. Barrack doublespeak on gun control.
The constitution gives the right to bear arms, therefore local ordinances taking away that right would be, get this, write it down: UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Clearly and simply.
Thanks for proving coronamv's point and mine. Barrack doublespeak on gun control.
The constitution gives the right to bear arms, therefore local ordinances taking away that right would be, get this, write it down: UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Clearly and simply.
I can't imagine you really talk to people like this in real life Hawkeye...if you do...then I am sorry for you.
You really need to reacquaint yourself with 1 Corinthians 13. { NIV by the way }
Thanks for proving coronamv's point and mine. Barrack doublespeak on gun control.
The constitution gives the right to bear arms, therefore local ordinances taking away that right would be, get this, write it down: UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Clearly and simply.
I can't imagine you really talk to people like this in real life Hawkeye...if you do...then I am sorry for you.
You really need to reacquaint yourself with 1 Corinthians 13. { NIV by the way }
If we were in a debate format in real life, then I would talk like this. We are in a debate format right now. Don't sidetrack the issue.
I just find it funny how neos get crazy about guns in Religion ...
Don't get me wrong I would not not part with my Glock 19 or 21 BUT I firmly believe that gun ownership should be tightly regulated
It already is. And tightening the restrictions on law-abiding citizens does not prevent the criminals from getting guns at all. It just makes more people prone to their violence.
Man HawkEyeLonewolf,
You seem to be full of some sort of anger or hate, Reading this whole thread you have laid out the most insults to others. And It started as soon as someone didn't share your POV. I can feel your blood pressure rise as you type. Deep breaths.
Man HawkEyeLonewolf,
You seem to be full of some sort of anger or hate, Reading this whole thread you have laid out the most insults to others. And It started as soon as someone didn't share your POV. I can feel your blood pressure rise as you type. Deep breaths.
No hate at all... And if you read clearly, you see that I've responded to insult with insult.
When did affordable health insurance become free healthcare?
It's already affordable for most and those that cannot have public heath care. No one is turned away in this country. They may incur debt, but they will be treated for emergencies.
When did health insurance become a "right"? Never.
When did affordable health insurance become free healthcare?
It's already affordable for most and those that cannot have public heath care. No one is turned away in this country. They may incur debt, but they will be treated for emergencies.
When did health insurance become a "right"? Never.
Oh really? What do you call affordable? $750 a month with a $5000 deductible?
Man HawkEyeLonewolf,
You seem to be full of some sort of anger or hate, Reading this whole thread you have laid out the most insults to others. And It started as soon as someone didn't share your POV. I can feel your blood pressure rise as you type. Deep breaths.
hummm... bitter ... angry... guns ... religion ... I heard that somewhere before ...let me think
I just find it funny how neos get crazy about guns in Religion ...
Don't get me wrong I would not not part with my Glock 19 or 21 BUT I firmly believe that gun ownership should be tightly regulated
It already is. And tightening the restrictions on law-abiding citizens does not prevent the criminals from getting guns at all. It just makes more people prone to their violence.
yeah like the "gunshow" loophole. We really need to keep that one right.
Frankly Obama is right on the 2nd amendment ... it is a state issue and the State should be able to enact laws controlling (regulating) the lawful ownership. I can conceal carry in Texas they cant in Maryland and thats fine its their law... what some want is the total repeal of all gun laws ... not a good thing
Thanks for proving coronamv's point and mine. Barrack doublespeak on gun control.
The constitution gives the right to bear arms, therefore local ordinances taking away that right would be, get this, write it down: UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Clearly and simply.
Yet you don't seem to have a problem with, for instance, Sarah Palin wanting to have "creationism" taught in the public schools, a clear and simple undermining of the Constitution. HawkeyeLonewolf doublespeak on religious freedom...
When did affordable health insurance become free healthcare?
It's already affordable for most and those that cannot have public heath care. No one is turned away in this country. They may incur debt, but they will be treated for emergencies.
When did health insurance become a "right"? Never.
This is news to me. If it's so affordable why are there more than 47 million of us walking around without it? And no one is turned away? I've seen it with my own eyes...and as far as I know you don't go to an emergency room to get chemo. Countless people, even people with health insurance have been utterly ruined by medical debt. I find this an absolute travesty that this is happening in my country.
"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Health is a big part of life and happiness is it not? Good health care, as far as I'm concerned, most definitely is a basic human right.
When did affordable health insurance become free healthcare?
When Obama said it would be "subsidized" ( with no limit mentioned to the amount of the subsidy - leaving the possibility open to a 100% subsidy ) for those who found it not "affordable". From the Obama website:
"Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and insure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function"
"Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need assistance will receive income-related federal subsidies to keep health insurance premiums affordable."
Note that nowhere does Obama define how far he would "expand" eligibility for Medicaid and/or SCHIP, nor does he define anywhere what "affordable" is.
When did affordable health insurance become free healthcare?
It's already affordable for most and those that cannot have public heath care. No one is turned away in this country. They may incur debt, but they will be treated for emergencies.
When did health insurance become a "right"? Never.
Really? You honestly believe that health insurance is affordable for those without employer provided coverage? Since when? Certainly not in the past 15 years. My experience is that you can get expensive coverage only IF you're healthy. Any pre-existing conditions will mean coverage is not available to you.
People are turned away from health care in this country all the time. You claiming otherwise speaks volumes about your ignorance on this issue. Why don't you go thump your bible instead of blathering on about stuff you know nothing about.
