More "Do as I say, not as I do" from the religious right

[yourmomma 0]

Perhaps you should explain just what about your post would require any critical thinking skills to decipher. (hence my bit'o'snark about 'nuance')

Critical thinking is not a method of deciphering anything.
It has been proven through your volumes of post that you're steadfast in the understanding you have. The response given to my posts is indicative of one whom is unable or unwilling to participate in logical examinations of the reality in which we all exist.

Edited to add a period, as choosing to ignore proper grammar and spelling is indicative of one whom is unable or unwilling to participate in logical examinations of the reality in which we all exist.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Perhaps you should explain just what about your post would require any critical thinking skills to decipher. (hence my bit'o'snark about 'nuance')

Critical thinking is not a method of deciphering anything.
It has been proven through your volumes of post that you're steadfast in the understanding you have. The response given to my posts is indicative of one whom is unable or unwilling to participate in logical examinations of the reality in which we all exist.

Edited to add a period, as choosing to ignore proper grammar and spelling is indicative of one whom is unable or unwilling to participate in logical examinations of the reality in which we all exist.

In other words, no, you can't show where any critical thinking skills were required in regards to understanding or answering your post.

Next time, instead of trying to insinuate that I'm not intelligent enough to understand your post, you should use your 'examination of reality' to answer more than just the "'why not the outrage when your side did it" justification of hypocrisy'" side of the argument. You'll look much less foolish when you try to cover your ass after being called on it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

More "Do as I say, not as I do" from the religious right

Religious Right? Why is it always the right that are religious? No liberals go to church? I find that hard to believe. Just another blank label on people that comes from the side who say I have to like and accept everyone.

Rookie 120, I cling to my religion and I cling to my guns just like BHO said. According to the ice cream lady, I'm a terrorist because I'm a vet, and I've also been labeled as a racist because I attended a tea party. I don't think Dr. Tilley was exactly part of the religious right, but he did attend church (I don't condone what happened to him) so you are correct (didn't say right), we are not the only ones going to church. I can't leave without mentioning the followers of the Reverend Jeremy Wright. I don't think they are part of the religious right. Am I wrong?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Two wrongs have never made a right.

So this Chinese woman gives birth to a baby who's obviously half-Caucasian, right? Anyhow, her husband sues for divorce. The grounds?

[drumroll]

Two Wongs don't make a white.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Perhaps you should explain just what about your post would require any critical thinking skills to decipher. (hence my bit'o'snark about 'nuance')

Critical thinking is not a method of deciphering anything.
It has been proven through your volumes of post that you're steadfast in the understanding you have. The response given to my posts is indicative of one whom is unable or unwilling to participate in logical examinations of the reality in which we all exist.

Edited to add a period, as choosing to ignore proper grammar and spelling is indicative of one whom is unable or unwilling to participate in logical examinations of the reality in which we all exist.

No it isn't.
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
This is not an argument!
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
Yes it is...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[yourmomma 0]

Wow. You lack cognition.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Wow. You lack cognition.

No he doesn't.
Yes he does!
Does not.
Does!
YOU lack cognition.
No I don't.
Yes you do!
Do not.
Do!
I'll bet you don't even know what cognition means!
I know what it means.
No you don't.
Yes I do.
No you don't.
Cognition, lkoosely defined, means the ability to understand what is being spoke or written.
That's right.
You can't tell me what is right and is not!
Yes I can.
No you can't.
I just did.
No you didn't.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[yourmomma 0]

I fucking hate lawyers.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Perhaps you should explain just what about your post would require any critical thinking skills to decipher.

I cannot think of one single positive reason why a person wouldn't apply critical thinking to absolutely everything, assuming they are capable of it.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gkzL-yKLwhNjJeXBMCZODK0KbQnAD98SNLKO1

For much of his public career, Sen. John Ensign has appeared a model of the religious right. By this week, he had become just another politician diminished by scandal. Rattled, humbled and alone at the podium, Ensign acknowledged to reporters an extramarital affair, the sort of moral failing he's criticized in the past.

The Nevada Republican once called on President Bill Clinton to resign, declaring "the truth must come out." In October 2007, he was sharply critical of former Sen. Larry Craig, of Idaho, calling the Republican's arrest in an airport bathroom sex sting "embarrassing for the Senate."

Hypocrite!

God will not be mocked. If you play, you will pay. Every opportunity carries an implied risk. Is the payoff worth the risk? The concept is sin, not politics.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I fucking hate lawyers.

Ah. Changing the subject, are you? [Sly]

No worries. I don't like them, either. But, there was a certain "The Argument" quality to this thread.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

But, there was a certain "The Argument" quality to this thread.

No there wasn't.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

But, there was a certain "The Argument" quality to this thread.

No there wasn't.

Yes there was.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,404]

Your one warning. Cut it out.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

I don't think anyone was worse than Jesse Jackson. The fact that he knocked up a subordinate while publicizing his efforts to counsel the President about his infidelities just made it hyperhypocrisy.

And Jesse Jackson should resign from the Senate too!

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't think anyone was worse than Jesse Jackson. The fact that he knocked up a subordinate while publicizing his efforts to counsel the President about his infidelities just made it hyperhypocrisy.

And Jesse Jackson should resign from the Senate too!

Well, he *does* associate with the Dems, after all.... 'Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas' and all that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

God will not be mocked.

Yes he will, he's a whiny little cunt and needs regular put downs to ensure he knows his place. You wouldn't believe the ego on that fucker!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Quote

God will not be mocked.

Yes he will, he's a whiny little cunt and needs regular put downs to ensure he knows his place. You wouldn't believe the ego on that fucker!

I understand why you are a hobo.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Oh, I'm so sorry - I was following your posting style.

Maybe Mr. Ensign was following the marriage style of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Edwards, Reverend Jackson.... of course, Mr. Ensign had the class to RESIGN his position - something the Dems never seem to do.

He (Ensign) doesn't HAVE to do anything, and nor do the dems, and so they haven't. And it's besides the point that he's following the marriage style of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Edwards, etc. He's not saying that Clinton, Edwards, and Jackson were anymore right or wrong than Ensign, but the point is that Clinton, Edwards, etc didn't preach to the country about 'wholesome conservative values,' or bash gays, or point fingers and call anybody sinners, and then turn around and commit the acts in question. He's talking about hypocrites, not lawbreakers that must resign. (though clinton did purger himself, IMO, and is then a lawbreaker, but thats a whole other conversation to be had in a different thread.)

If you base your platform on good moral values, and then demoralize those values, then I think you're a fraud and maybe should resign. If you haven't sold yourself to the people and got voted in on those conservative preachings, then what exactly have you done wrong to resign in your professional life? Most dems in the same boat with an affair haven't violated any promises to the public or their voters, unlike a lot of conservative repubs who basically make promises to their voters when they portray and sell themselves as wholesome conservative christians who would never do such a think like an affair, and then they do. Don't sell yourself on a box so high and mighty, and then when the shit hits the fan you've got nobody to answer to but your own wife and family.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

He's not saying that Clinton, Edwards, and Jackson were anymore right or wrong than Ensign, but the point is that Clinton, Edwards, etc didn't preach to the country about 'wholesome conservative values,' or bash gays, or point fingers and call anybody sinners,

I've never heard Ensign preach, bash gays, or call anyone a sinner. Have you? If you have links to any speeches, please provide them.

Are you saying that Democrats don't take a stand on fidelity because they know one day they are likely to get caught or because they don't think it's very important?

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

He's not saying that Clinton, Edwards, and Jackson were anymore right or wrong than Ensign, but the point is that Clinton, Edwards, etc didn't preach to the country about 'wholesome conservative values,' or bash gays, or point fingers and call anybody sinners,

I've never heard Ensign preach, bash gays, or call anyone a sinner. Have you? If you have links to any speeches, please provide them.

I guess you missed his comments on Clinton and Craig, both of whom he called on to resign for their pecadillos.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Ensign, let me begin with you. One of Senator Craig's advisers is quoted in The New York Times this morning as saying, "Larry was shocked by the deafening silence by some and the rush to judgment by others, even in his own leadership." Was this a rush to judgment?

SEN. ENSIGN: I don't think so, simply because Larry had admitted guilt. This wasn't like he was just charged with something, especially something that he denied. He had admitted guilt, guilt to something that I thought was not only embarrassing to himself and his family but also to the whole United States Senate. That's one of the things that I -- I'm proudest about our leadership, is the swift action, not only calling for an immediate Senate investigation, ethics investigation, removing him from his committees, but also sending the signal to him that it was probably best that he resign. It was best for himself, best for his family, and best for the institution of the Senate.

Quote

Are you saying that Democrats don't take a stand on fidelity because they know one day they are likely to get caught or because they don't think it's very important?

Maybe it's just because they don't believe in preaching to others on moral issues, like Ensign did.

The issue is hypocrisy, not fidelity.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

He's not saying that Clinton, Edwards, and Jackson were anymore right or wrong than Ensign, but the point is that Clinton, Edwards, etc didn't preach to the country about 'wholesome conservative values,' or bash gays, or point fingers and call anybody sinners,

I've never heard Ensign preach, bash gays, or call anyone a sinner. Have you? If you have links to any speeches, please provide them.

I guess you missed his comments on Clinton and Craig, both of whom he called on to resign for their pecadillos.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Ensign, let me begin with you. One of Senator Craig's advisers is quoted in The New York Times this morning as saying, "Larry was shocked by the deafening silence by some and the rush to judgment by others, even in his own leadership." Was this a rush to judgment?

SEN. ENSIGN: I don't think so, simply because Larry had admitted guilt. This wasn't like he was just charged with something, especially something that he denied. He had admitted guilt, guilt to something that I thought was not only embarrassing to himself and his family but also to the whole United States Senate. That's one of the things that I -- I'm proudest about our leadership, is the swift action, not only calling for an immediate Senate investigation, ethics investigation, removing him from his committees, but also sending the signal to him that it was probably best that he resign. It was best for himself, best for his family, and best for the institution of the Senate.

Quote

Are you saying that Democrats don't take a stand on fidelity because they know one day they are likely to get caught or because they don't think it's very important?

Maybe it's just because they don't believe in preaching to others on moral issues, like Ensign did.

The issue is hypocrisy, not fidelity.

Two different issues. Craig admitted to a CRIME. He should resign, unquestionably. Clinton was impeached for the crime of perjury. I won't argue the hypocrisy, but arguing that Ensign is more hypocritical than Edwards or Clinton is absurd. What's the difference? They all attend church, all married in church, all took similar vows. So the question was, what in your mind makes them less culpable of hypocrisy? Were they all not living in lies?

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[billvon 2,404]

> Clinton was impeached for the crime of perjury.

And found not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors that warranted removal from office.

> I won't argue the hypocrisy, but arguing that Ensign is more hypocritical
>than Edwards or Clinton is absurd. What's the difference?

Clinton didn't tell philandering republicans that they should resign.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

> Clinton was impeached for the crime of perjury.

And found not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors that warranted removal from office.

> I won't argue the hypocrisy, but arguing that Ensign is more hypocritical
>than Edwards or Clinton is absurd. What's the difference?

Clinton didn't tell philandering republicans that they should resign.

What philandering republicans do you refer to? Pre-Lewinsky, of course. Again, for most reasonable people, it was the lying before the grand jury, not the bjs, that initiated the impeachment. And, after hearing the testimony and listening to him look square into the camera - if after that you agree with the "aquittal" - ah well, there's another tired old topic. Any vote these days is irrelevant in such a partisan environment, imo. Too bad they don't just consider the evidence.

I'm still waiting on links to the sermons, gay bashing, and sinner finger pointing.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[billvon 2,404]

>What philandering republicans do you refer to?

None specifically, since my point was that he did not tell them they should resign. But if you are curious here are a few before 1994 (the beginning of the Lewinsky thing)

1980 - Robert Bauman indicted on soliciting sex from a 16 year old boy
1983 - Dan Crane has an affair with a congressional page
1992 - Bob Packwood apologizes to women who he engaged in "sexual misconduct" with, later convicted

Now, this is usually the place that MnealTX interjects with "oh yeah? Well here are some DEMOCRATS that did bad stuff!" Which, of course, completely misses the point. Both sides do it. One side claims to represent family values, "the sanctity of marriage" and high morals.

> Again, for most reasonable people, it was the lying before the grand
>jury, not the bjs, that initiated the impeachment. And, after hearing the
>testimony and listening to him look square into the camera - if after that
>you agree with the "aquittal" . . .

I don't. Nevertheless, he was acquitted.

>Any vote these days is irrelevant in such a partisan environment, imo.

So your argument is that since people voted along party lines, there was no way they could successfully impeach him?

I think you might want to do some fact checking, there.