LawTalkers
Page 52 of 126 « First 2425051 52 535462102 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Waiting for Fitzgerald (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=704)

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 04:56 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Neeeeew... the Catholics invented the religion of keeping the trash in check. That shit the trailer folks in the bible belt worship in their stadium churches is the favored myth of the American Inbred. That religion actually empowers those uneducated vermin to start fucking around with politics. The Catholic Church was all about keeping the believers complacent and tithing.
So? That does not mean that their God supplanted the real One.

taxwonk 10-06-2005 04:59 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
I think that there is an argument to be made that "Christian values" could exclude the teaching of explicit descriptions of sex acts between people of any genders, the same or different, to highschool students.
Is homosexuality an absolute wrong, or is it one of those things that God doesn't really care about?

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:01 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Is homosexuality an absolute wrong, or is it one of those things that God doesn't really care about?
I don't think cares as long as people are married.

taxwonk 10-06-2005 05:06 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Perhaps you did. So what? I did not say "christian values" preclude including curricula that contains explicit sexual descriptions or themes, in part. I said that there is an argument that could be made that the term "christian values" included in the mission statement, as it was in that school's mission statement, could preclude such teaching.

Are you saying that it's not possible that a reasonable person, in the context of sending their child to a school whose mission it is, explicitly, to impart "christian values" couldn't come to that conclusion?
"There is an argument that could be made..." That's moral relativity Penske. Does this mean that God may have absolutes, but we mere mortals have to deal with conflicting rights, values, principles, and interests? Can people strike a balance?

If so, then what help does your profession of absolute right and wrongs offer us? If it is at best an aspiration, then what is left is compromise. Have I got this right or am I missing something?

sebastian_dangerfield 10-06-2005 05:07 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
So? That does not mean that their God supplanted the real One.
Huh? Are you trying to say the Jews have the one true franchise on God? If age of religion is the criteria, I'll grant the Jews beat the Catholics. But I think the Zoarastrians and Druids have everybody beat.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:08 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
"There is an argument that could be made..." That's moral relativity Penske. Does this mean that God may have absolutes, but we mere mortals have to deal with conflicting rights, values, principles, and interests? Can people strike a balance?

If so, then what help does your profession of absolute right and wrongs offer us? If it is at best an aspiration, then what is left is compromise. Have I got this right or am I missing something?
You are missing something. It's a person's expectation that I was referencing. That's subject to the subjective interest of the expectant party.

taxwonk 10-06-2005 05:08 PM
Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
I think that there is a difference between using an explicit in a heated/emotional context and having a standing nickname for a subordinate worker that incorporates an explicitive. It is even more offputting when its the PotUS coining/using the nickname and the subordinate is the FBI Director. I think the office calls for a little more decorum, respect and dignity. If he called Freeh a fucker once, I could understand it. If its a standing nickname, something different.
Would it be better if he had called Freeh Turd Blossom?

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:10 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Huh? Are you trying to say the Jews have the one true franchise on God? If age of religion is the criteria, I'll grant the Jews beat the Catholics. But I think the Zoarastrians and Druids have everybody beat.
I used to be a zoroastrian, fwiw. I may yet convert to judaism.

taxwonk 10-06-2005 05:13 PM
Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Wonk says if the President orders the military to war then they the President has murdered. We all agree Bill did that. Are you and Wonk breaking ranks here?
Wonk didn't say that. Penske said it. Wonk just quoted him and asked Penske to confirm it or to explain the contradiction between his statement that killing is an absolute wrong and his statement that he did not oppose the war in Iraq.

taxwonk 10-06-2005 05:14 PM
BREAKING....
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
I disagree. I assume Bush is not telling the truth when he says he has never discussed abortion with him. I also assume that she has told him she is anti-RvW and would overturn it. That's not my litmus test and I think soime of the commentators are making a more principled argument too. She is not qualified. Period. She could promise to overturn Roe v Wade. Pour a couple of bottles of 85 Lafitte Rothschilde down my gullet and blow me till the cows come home, npi, and I still wouldn't support the nominiation. But I understand that it's hard for a leftie to understand principle.
What is the principle here?

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:17 PM
Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Would it be better if he had called Freeh Turd Blossom?
I know your point is to be irritating, but that is stupid. Presumably TB is an assented to nickname between two friends. I think it must be a frat culture type of thing. I had a friend once who went by the nickname Asshole. Sometimes it would also have his name included, like AssholeMike. He referred to himself like this and a certain clique of his friends did likewise. That's completely distinct from me referring to the associate down the hall to other people who work in the office as DouchebagSlave. No offence. That's classless and inappropriate for any workplace (I would probably get fired if mgmt found out) for any employee in a position of authority, or otherwise but more so an authority figure to a subordinate. Even more so for the PotUS, based on the status of the office.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 10-06-2005 05:18 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't think cares as long as people are married.
So you learned to like the anal only after getting married? Didn't take the fiancee for a test drive?

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:19 PM
Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Wonk didn't say that. Penske said it. Wonk just quoted him and asked Penske to confirm it or to explain the contradiction between his statement that killing is an absolute wrong and his statement that he did not oppose the war in Iraq.
Wrong, regardless of my position, you are attempting to attribute those deaths to Bush, when in fact our enemy, the terrorists, killed them.

taxwonk 10-06-2005 05:19 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Perhaps we are in the early innings of the apocalypse. I am thankful we are on the right side.
You're ducking the questions, Penske. You have proclaimed for years to be more principled and more moral and superior to the Democrats (under a number of generalities designed to inflame rather than stimulate serious debate).

Either admit you're in checkmate of make your next move. After all, by your own assertion, the very soul of the American People is at stake.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:19 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So you learned to like the anal only after getting married? Didn't take the fiancee for a test drive?
A gentleman doesn't kiss and tell. And Hank's wife was never my fiance.

Gattigap 10-06-2005 05:20 PM
Tossing Penske a Lifeline
 
[whistle]

Hey! Look over here!

http://billmon.org/archives/fed.jpg

Tyrone Slothrop 10-06-2005 05:20 PM
Dear Spanky
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am ready to come home. The dims tent is too small, parochial and inhospitable for me.
Hey, hold up a sec. I didn't get a chance to show you where they're pouring the good zins.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:21 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
You're ducking the questions, Penske. You have proclaimed for years to be more principled and more moral and superior to the Democrats (under a number of generalities designed to inflame rather than stimulate serious debate).

Either admit you're in checkmate of make your next move. After all, by your own assertion, the very soul of the American People is at stake.
Its sad that you would go to such great lengths to denigrate religion and dumb down morality. You are better than this.

taxwonk 10-06-2005 05:21 PM
DING!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Kennedy for one. Clintons are suspect for two.
So are you suggesting that the Kennedys and the Clintons are coming personally for your property? And are you further stating that you are justified under the Second Amendment to use deadly force of arms to fend off this dread invasion from the East? How can you reconcile this with the fact that all killing is an absolute wrong?

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:25 PM
Dear Spanky
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hey, hold up a sec. I didn't get a chance to show you where they're pouring the good zins.
Make me an offer I can't refuse.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:28 PM
DING!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
So are you suggesting that the Kennedys and the Clintons are coming personally for your property? And are you further stating that you are justified under the Second Amendment to use deadly force of arms to fend off this dread invasion from the East? How can you reconcile this with the fact that all killing is an absolute wrong?
This post makes no sense. I am suggesting that Kennedy is a killer. And Clinton is a person of interest in a few killings. How that relates to anything else you wrote I don't know. Why would you want to defend there defenseless misdeeds? Do you approve of rape and murder?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 10-06-2005 05:29 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
A gentleman doesn't kiss and tell.
Assuming the premise, you certainly can deny. God knows anyway. He will judge you.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:31 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Assuming the premise, you certainly can deny. God knows anyway. He will judge you.
I'm down wit dat.

taxwonk 10-06-2005 05:36 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Under oath, it's absolutely wrong.
So then lying, when one has sworn to God to tell the trusth is an absolute wrong, but lying in general is a relative wrong?

Okay, scorecard so far:

1. Killing is an absolute wrong, but you can't admit it because it creates too much of a cultural dissonance for you. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that logic dictates in a debate of positivism versus relativism, ties go to relativism.

2. Rape is an absolute wrong.

3. Lying is a relative wrong, unless you take the Lord's name in vain when you do so.

It's been slow, and a bit painful, but I think we're making progress here.

taxwonk 10-06-2005 05:39 PM
Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Although that's still 1000 short of the blood on Clinton's hands from his testing of the theory of "complete abdication of duty to national security for 8 years".
Shame on you, Penske. Killing is an absolute wrong, remember. Whether you are responsible for the taking of one life or a million, you are a sinner under your rules.

Or are you revisiting that absolute thing?

taxwonk 10-06-2005 05:40 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
So? That does not mean that their God supplanted the real One.
You haven't yet offered up an support for an absolute God. As of this point, there is no One real one.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:40 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
So then lying, when one has sworn to God to tell the trusth is an absolute wrong, but lying in general is a relative wrong?

Okay, scorecard so far:

1. Killing is an absolute wrong, but you can't admit it because it creates too much of a cultural dissonance for you. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that logic dictates in a debate of positivism versus relativism, ties go to relativism.

2. Rape is an absolute wrong.

3. Lying is a relative wrong, unless you take the Lord's name in vain when you do so.

It's been slow, and a bit painful, but I think we're making progress here.

I didn't say lying was a relative wrong. I solely said lying under oath is absolutely wrong.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:42 PM
Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Shame on you, Penske. Killing is an absolute wrong, remember. Whether you are responsible for the taking of one life or a million, you are a sinner under your rules.

Or are you revisiting that absolute thing?
I didn't say there was anything not wrong about taking any lives in particular, I was just pointing out that assuming Bush is responsible for 2000 deaths, his predecessor was responsible for 3000, which is 1000 more wrong.

taxwonk 10-06-2005 05:43 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't think cares as long as people are married.
Does that mean that the Republican Party is wrong because they treat homosexuality as an absolute wrong, or does it make them wrong because they oppose gay marriage, or is the Republican Party wrong on both counts?

And since they are presuming to declare as an absolute, in the eyes of God, something that God himself doesn't view as an absolute wrong, does that make the Republican Party absolutely wrong?

bilmore 10-06-2005 05:43 PM
Evangelical means never having to say . . . .
 
"President George W. Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals"

Gawd told me to take Friday off.

I'm sure glad Gawd only ever tells me to do things I already wanna do.

bilmore 10-06-2005 05:44 PM
Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
I didn't say there was anything not wrong about taking any lives in particular, I was just pointing out that assuming Bush is responsible for 2000 deaths, his predecessor was responsible for 3000, which is 1000 more wrong.
Okay, I'm ducking in here in the middle, and may have missed the poiint, but isn't it a point of pride to cause the deaths of those deserving of death?

taxwonk 10-06-2005 05:45 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
You are missing something. It's a person's expectation that I was referencing. That's subject to the subjective interest of the expectant party.
How does this differ from my premise, that God may deal in absolutes, but people have to deal in relative terms, being mortal and not omniscisent?

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:47 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Does that mean that the Republican Party is wrong because they treat homosexuality as an absolute wrong, or does it make them wrong because they oppose gay marriage, or is the Republican Party wrong on both counts?

And since they are presuming to declare as an absolute, in the eyes of God, something that God himself doesn't view as an absolute wrong, does that make the Republican Party absolutely wrong?
Cite me where the RNC declared it an absolute wrong and when you do I will get back to you.

Sidd Finch 10-06-2005 05:48 PM
Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Wrong, regardless of my position, you are attempting to attribute those deaths to Bush, when in fact our enemy, the terrorists, killed them.

But you gladly (and incessantly) attribute the deaths of 3000 people in the WTC to Clinton when in fact our enemy, the terrorists, killed them.





(And after Bush had been president for eight months, of course, but we'll ignore that aspect of your idiocy for now)

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:48 PM
Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Okay, I'm ducking in here in the middle, and may have missed the poiint, but isn't it a point of pride to cause the deaths of those deserving of death?
No, Wonk is trying to pin the deaths of the US military in Iraq on Bush. the 3000 are the 911 victims that died due to Clinton's abdication of his duty to our national defence for 8 years. At least he got a blow job though, right?

taxwonk 10-06-2005 05:49 PM
Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
I know your point is to be irritating, but that is stupid. Presumably TB is an assented to nickname between two friends. I think it must be a frat culture type of thing. I had a friend once who went by the nickname Asshole. Sometimes it would also have his name included, like AssholeMike. He referred to himself like this and a certain clique of his friends did likewise. That's completely distinct from me referring to the associate down the hall to other people who work in the office as DouchebagSlave. No offence. That's classless and inappropriate for any workplace (I would probably get fired if mgmt found out) for any employee in a position of authority, or otherwise but more so an authority figure to a subordinate. Even more so for the PotUS, based on the status of the office.
My point isn't to be irritating. You made the statement that it was inappropriate for the POTUS to use profane and insulting language to refer on a regular basis to a member of his government. Yet, Bush regularly refers to Karl Rove as Turd Blossom.

Why is it okay for Bush when it was so highly inappropriate for Clinton?

Secret_Agent_Man 10-06-2005 05:49 PM
Evangelical means never having to say . . . .
 
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
"President George W. Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals"

Gawd told me to take Friday off.

I'm sure glad Gawd only ever tells me to do things I already wanna do.
Holy Crap!

Wonder what God told him about Miers.

S_A_M

P.S. Nice to see you.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:50 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
How does this differ from my premise, that God may deal in absolutes, but people have to deal in relative terms, being mortal and not omniscisent?
God has never spoken, directly or indirectly, on the expectation of a parent related to a bargained for curricula. At least not that I know, but let me know if you have a cite on that one.

Sidd Finch 10-06-2005 05:50 PM
Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
2. Rape is an absolute wrong.
Not so fast. If Green Berets were butt-raping Iraqi prisoners, Penske would defend it.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 05:51 PM
Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
But you gladly (and incessantly) attribute the deaths of 3000 people in the WTC to Clinton when in fact our enemy, the terrorists, killed them.





(And after Bush had been president for eight months, of course, but we'll ignore that aspect of your idiocy for now)
The distinction is that Clinton may very well have been complicit with our enemy directly or via his conspiracy with the RedChinese.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:21 PM.
Page 52 of 126 « First 2425051 52 535462102 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com