posted
I've listened to a lot of Rush Limbaugh, and the only time he interrupts a liberal, or anyone for that matter, is one: when he needs to fit the call into his time frame; or two: when the caller says something blatently stupid.
Either way, if Rush Limbaugh *really* was as bad as you say, JK, he wouldn't even take calls from liberals.
And you're totally wrong on the "Spokeman for Republican Way of Life." He is the spokesman for the conservative way of life, something I tend to agree with.
------------------ "I'm not like George Bush. If he wins or loses, life goes on. I will do anything to win." - Al Gore, Newsweek, 1999
posted
Heck, the man moves liberals up to the front of the caller line. I don't know who you were listening to, JK, but it wasn't Rush Limbaugh. Assuming you were listening to anyone at all.
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
posted
A minister once told me the the masons were satanic, because of the shape of their symbol being somewhat similer to a goats head, which is similer to his churchs version of satan. He is entitled to his point of view......
He was also one of those D&D slammers. I bought a book, Tome of Magic, and asked him to look it over and point out to me where in that book I could find a spell to say to make anyhting happen. He looked at every page in the book, and found nothing. I changed his mind on D&D, it wasn't satanic, but a game.
quote:I don't know who you were listening to, JK, but it wasn't Rush Limbaugh. Assuming you were listening to anyone at all.
Yes JK, please turn the station in your head to some easy listening.
Or even better, plain static will give you better information than El Rusho.
You dern tree-hugging, diversity-seeking, gay-loving, anti-gun, tofu-eating, believer in the ozone hole, feminazi JK! You take that, you...you...you progressive!
------------------ Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit? ~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 17, 2000).]
posted
I am a person that a person should get person rights, no special treatment for anything. Well, ok, yes, there are somethings, like missing body parts and being mentally diminished. These people should have help. But any special rights for your sexual orientation is wrong, as is any special prohabitions against a person for thier sexual orientation is wrong.
Specifying "gay rights" seems wrong, specifying individual right seems better. I have customers at Colortyme that cover the entire spectrum, do I give any special treatment to anybody..... Yes, those that pay their bills on time will get better service. Based on their individual actions.
I once had a guy at a bar tell me I had to like him, because he was gay. Until he made that statement I thought he was a pretty good joe, but demanding special treatment from me because of his sexual orientation was wrong.
posted
::begins crying:: Jay ... why must you be so mean? =(
----
Ritten,
Very good point ... individual rights are of extreme importance ... the Gay rights movement is frankly what seems to be the only one left as still a work in progress (what the hell is wrong with two men or two women getting married?).
-----
Oh, right. Omega, ::Smack You!:: for being so close minded that you refuse to look at anyone else's beliefs, instead calling them names and being a child.
Why am I surprised? You *are* a child.
JeffRaven and First of Two have formed their opinions ... First more definitly than JeffR, I'd venture, going from a staunch Democrat to a staunch Republican. I'm sure JeffR has had some of his beliefs changed, and if not, I'm sure they're challenged every day.
But you, Omega. What do you do? Listen to Rush all day and night? You accuse others of being spoon-fed information, yet refuse to see that you *are* spoon-fed.
I see two reasons why you would be Republican:
Your parents are Republicans, so you're one too, of course, because thats what they've taught you.
Your parents are Democrats, so you're a Republican as a way to rebel against your folks.
Both are perfectly understandeable, but neither makes your position correct. Quite frankly, your position will never be correct.
Now, let me explain that. 1of2 is a great example of this. He went from a Clinton-voter to a Bush-voter. Why? His belief system was challenged. He formed opinions for himself (which he can defend very well, while all you do is go around demanding people "proove it" and calling those who disagree "stupid liberals").
I don't know if JeffR has had his beliefs challenged in quite the same way, I don't know if he's ever been anything but a Republican, but I can tell you he's probably been made to actually *think* about his stand on the issues and defend those stands.
As for myself, as I mentioned earlier, I was once a supporter of the death penalty and guns ... but again, I was challenged, and found the pros of those issues lacking against the cons.
And I am capable of independent thought Omega, unlike yourself. You see, I, the staunch liberal ... voted for a Republican, Rob Ehrlich, as my councilman. Why did I vote for him? Well, because he was the best man for the job ... and NOT because of party lines.
You stereotype Dems as "liberals", yet pull imaginary numbers out of your ass apparently to defend the KKK presance in the Republican Party. You accuse others of "ad-homenim" attacks when you routinely do the same.
posted
To put it in words you might understand, JK: shove it.
Let's see...
1) You say I'm spoon-fed my ideas because... what? Because I beat you in arguments? You spout one party line, I spout another. The thing is: I can back mine up with logic. I win. Get over it.
2) You state my position will never be correct. Fine, well, then, proove it. First and I have beaten you in every argument so far. We have evidence and logic. You have rhetoric. Seems like I'm the correct one.
3) I never said anything about Democrats and liberals being synonymous. Gore voters and liberals, yes. Ignorance and liberals, yes. But you're the one who seems to intimately associate party affiliation and philosophical views.
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
You completely missed over what I said about "correct." First's arguments are correct, because he's had them challenged and in some cases, changed. Go read over what I said again.
If you want to tell me to shove it, be my guest. And please learn how to spell prove.
Um ... you never said Democrats = Liberals? What about that "98% of Democrats are Liberals, but only .000000001% of Republicans are in the KKK" ... crap? Short memory, eh?
What arguments have *you* beat me in? And careful: don't confuse my conceding points to 1of2 or JeffR with you beating me. My, you are an arrogant little twit, aren't you? If I have to go over that whole issue again, I'd be quite perturbed.
posted
And isn't telling me to shove it an ad-homenium? Tsk tsk, Omega. I seem to remember you taking me to task for a similar attack ... and here you are, resorting to the same thing.
Charles Capps
We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid.
Member # 9
posted
*jumps into the conversation*
I was in Phoenix a few months ago (as I always am, lurking during the day)... For once, the little kids, the Saiya-jin, the Jedi, and the idiots that I have to protect from each other left, and a few people who I could dare call intelligent came in. A conversation started, and as with all decent conversations, it eventually went to the big three: sex, religion, and politics.
Yes, this is relevant to the digression in progress.
Along came a guy named Jon. (Tim, you remember this night, surely...)
Jon is one of those unfortunately not so rare specimens of Christians who are so closed minded and stubborn about his beliefs that we could simply not help but probe his limits. He reminded me of Jim... Those of you who know him, know what I speak of. Those of you who do not know him, feel very lucky.
Anyway.
I asked him a question... went something like this.
Me: "Uh, so Jon... The Masons are devil worshipers, right?" Jon: "Yes." Me: "So, because I graduated at a catering place that used to be a Masonic temple, have I worshiped the devil?" Jon: "Yes, I believe you have."
(The exact context of the questions and answers is currently somewhere in the back of my mind, but this is close enough...)
It went on.
Me: "Say, my girlfriend is Wiccan. Is she going to hell too?" Jon: "What is Wiccan?" Me: "Wicca. Witchcraft." Jon: "Oh. Yes, she is."
Ok, what's my point?
- Blind, unquestioning faith is stupid - People who have blind, unquestioning faith in their religion are of questionable sanity - People who have blind, unquestioning faith in their religion who make a futile attempt to preach to others are of questionable sanity - People who willingly stay and get beat up on by a bunch of others are of questionable intelligence - People who insult or otherwise ridicule others for their beliefs are of questionable intelligence
I realized near the end of the conversation with Jon that I was doing to him what I so hated being done to me by Jim. I was preaching to him. I was trying to make him see that he was a fool for thinking what he did.
Tell me, how much better than him does that make me? We're both bloody idiots.
Before you continue with your arguments, please take a few minutes and consider this.
Thanks.
------------------ "Uh, Cody, what has the Mullah of Cappistan been smoking?" "MILKSHAKES. I HAVE BEEN SMOKING MILKSHAKES!"
posted
Ok, I'm going to go over this "correct" thing one more time, because I don't think I made it very clear (I mean, if Omega didn't understand ...)
1of2 said himself that he used to be a Democrat. His opinions have changed ... but why? Because of where he lived? Who he hung out with? Of course. As people move on with their lives, opinions and beliefs get challenged. 1of2, an eloquent "typer" and I'm sure also a speaker, defends his beliefs and does so very well. His beliefs are "correct" because they are "correct" for him, as my beliefs are "correct" for me. Are they same belief? In some cases, yes, in some no.
Omega, your beliefs are not "correct" for you. Maybe they are, there is that possibility. But until you've moved away from home, and lived in THE REAL WORLD you won't know.
Get it? Did anyone else have any trouble understanding that?
"You completely missed over what I said about "correct." First's arguments are correct, because he's had them challenged and in some cases, changed."
You might want to look up the definition of "correct", 'cause it seems like you're saying that First is correct, I agree with First, and yet I'm not correct. Is english not your first language, by any chance?
JK2:
"And isn't telling me to shove it an ad-homenium?"
No, it's only ad hominem (and why don't you learn how to spell THAT, hmm?) if I intend to convince someone of something by insulting you. I just insulted you because I felt like it.
Charles:
I'd have to agree with those points. Of course, I'd add a caviat to the last one, saying that it's OK to ridicule others for their beliefs, if their beliefs fall into one of the first three categories.
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
Printer-friendly view of this topic