Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
I personally feel that forcing my constricting morals on someone who does not share my faith does nothing to serve God.
Hm, that's special 'code' language... Well, Kerry's your guy then. That was a similar talking point in the 2nd debate. He's a good solid secularist. Hopefully, if elected, he's not gonna force his constricting morals of love thy neighbor by feeding, clothing, housing, educating, providing healthcare via stealing, err, higher taxation, from our richer neighbors. As long as he keeps those kinds of views to himself where they belong, s'alright with me. In fact, there are a lot of other views of his I do not share that I would hope he'd keep to himself.
Quote:
Except it's not only when someone is lying or filibustering. O'Reilly literally hung up on a guest a few months ago because his guest was trying to get across his belief that the war in Iraq has been a huge recruitment point for terrorists and insurgents. O'Reilly called this bull, but rather than saying why it was bull he simply cut the guy off. Maybe it was bull, but I'd like to hear why, rather than trusting someone at their word.
So you stopped watching or listening to him? I'm sorry he failed you on that.
Quote:
That's one of the things that drives me nuts about GWB; his most frequent response to questions in the first debate (other than "it's hard work") was essentially, "trust me, I have a plan." I'd like to hear the plan before I trust him.
Well, he's a terrible debater for one. And the criticism you just laid out is the same that it's been for Kerry. His is, trust me, I can't screw up as bad as that Bush guy. I suppose though we can look through their websites for pdfs that have detailed plans.
Quote:
My personal opinion? These days, 75~85%.
Almost every 3 out of 4 airings of a particular show? Wowser.
Quote:
You're the one who complained about generalizations. Just thought I'd remind you of your own.
Yes, but to defend bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior for the desired equivalence, you're taking your generalization which was quite serious and presented as such, and weighing it against mine which wasn't. If you believe that shields yours from criticism from me by virtue of hypocrisy, fairy enough. I complained about a serious generalization, not a generalization I'm unwilling to defend and wasn't serious. If yours was in jest, would I care? No.
Quote:
Oh, and bbob, thank you for the dictionary definition to explain my choice of words. You saved me the trouble.
That it is synonymous with sensational did not explain your choice to use it. Unless you use 'porn' for 'sensationalism' consistently instead of selectively for this case, that didn't mean much to me.
