Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 177
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    I find it interesting that the "Super pro-all-things - gay" ultra, mega defenders of man on man sexual intercourse love to "Gay shame" and call people out of the closet whenever they are of different political beliefs.

    That is true hypocrisy. The hallmark of the left

    ---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:57 PM ----------

    By the by, would you care to define hypocrisy for the audiance and explain how his last article was an example of it? Trump is, after all, pro gay marriage.

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    In what way is it an important difference? To wish the death of liberalism would have to be the death of liberals as one goes with the other. Even so, it still does not change the charge i made against him. Wishing the death of one horse in what in america can only be called a two horse race still would give him his dictatorship of a single party just as lenin designed it.
    Because one is about violence or strongly implies it, while the other is about changing your mind which I think is a perfectly nice thing to do once in a while.

    I don't think the demise of american liberalism would lead to a single party. It would simply divide whatever party remained into a couple of different factions that divide about equally among the american electorate. That's how these things tend to work provided you maintain a democracy. We've always had splits, but they have not always been along the current idological divide.

    ---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    As the members of ODN well know (and I believe it was GoldPhoenix who argued this position best a few years ago) classic Liberalism is essentially what Libertarianism is today. It is nothing like the modern progressive liberalism that has infected this country and the world over. Im a huge fan of classic Liberalism and strongly hold several of the positions that comprise it as my own. However, this neoliberal fascism that has highjacked the Democrat party is something that needs to die a swift death and be purged from the world.
    It's roots are still there if you know where to look and what to look at. Civil rights is very much a struggle of classic liberalism, as is democracy in general. So to is the idea of being open to change and progress rather than rooted in the traditions of the past. The democrats don't perfectly embody these ideas, but there are strong threads within the liberal side of american politics. As where the republicans are very often classically conservative in their approach to culture and tradition. They are always calling us to go back to what used to be great and what our fathers said and so forth.

    Mind you, yes, libertarians are the best embodyment of the idea politically speaking.

    ---------- Post added at 03:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    I find it interesting that the "Super pro-all-things - gay" ultra, mega defenders of man on man sexual intercourse love to "Gay shame" and call people out of the closet whenever they are of different political beliefs.
    I've only seen it done when they are gay shaming someone who publicly attacks gay people. I think that is fair enough. If you publich go on the record condemning something you do in private, getting called out on it is a very just punishment for your hypocracy.

    Mind you the article above is not especially convincing as to the positive identity of the photographs and I think if you don't have proof you should not make such accusations.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. Likes Someguy liked this post
  4. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Good points, all, Sig. However, I think we are straying ( both of us in equal measure ) from the OP.

    EDIT ** Apart from the "Gay pics" part.

    EDIT ** Corrected grammar
    Last edited by Someguy; November 16th, 2016 at 04:03 PM.

  5. #24
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    True enough. Back to hypocracy!
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  6. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    Are you really presenting the argument that "Once a Liberal, always a Liberal" and that it is impossible for a Liberal to change his ideology? Or are you presenting the idea that if the ideology of Liberalism dies, that all of the believers would suffer from heart attacks and kill over too? Im confused as to how, exactly, you arrive to the conclusion that if Liberalism dies, all Liberals die too.
    I am presenting the argument that liberalism is not a thing. it is an idea. If the idea is dead then there is no one thinking it. No liberalism = no liberals. Would you prefer i used the word non existent rather than dead. Not that it makes much difference. I do understand that you are not actually wishing the death of people when you made your statement. But it is still death even if not literally.
    The American election system is a thinly veiled system of controlled opposition...as Ill explain below.
    Agreed your governance system is based around conflict rather than cooperation.
    You seem to contradict you previous post here. Are the political parties the same or not? And, what exactly are you disagreeing with? Im the one that said the GOP and the Progressive left are the same party essentially and only different, by and large, by small degrees of difference.
    On this then, we agree. This may have started out as two differing parties but there is very little difference between the two.
    Classic Liberalism, AKA Libertarianism, is the only different semi-major party in play here.
    This does not make sense to me. I will refer you back to a previous statement of yours.
    As I've said, it's reassuring to me that you libs don't seem to understand why you keep losing. It would seem you are more blinded by your hate and ideology than even I thought. This is a good thing. The sooner liberalism dies, the better.
    Your first sentence links liberals with the democratic party. It was the democrats who lost and you call them libs.
    Your last sentence hopes liberalism dies.
    So are you saying that classical liberalism split into two paths. One going towards the democrats AKA the libs and another towards the neolibs or american libertarianism.

    I dont really care about the distinctions between which one is "left wing" or "right wing". Either way, they are still part of the same bird.
    I disagree in that that is only a case to be made for america. There is really bugger all difference between the two parties which makes for little difference between left and right. So you are correct only as far as your country politics is concerned.
    The modern left and right were designed to form "Controlled Opposition" and to give us the illusion of choice in the American political system. The only thing is that our "choices" are simply to what degree we will be dictated to. They both agree on 99% of issues...such as income tax, property tax, foreign interventionism, Empire building, Federal supremacy, and on and on...they only disagree with the degrees of those things. Should the income tax be 25% or 35%? Property tax 1.5 or 2.5%. How about none? That would be a real choice. So, where are we disagreeing ?
    That the american system of governance is nothing more than a failed experiment is apparently something we can agree on. What i found wrong was your original statement of wishing one party dead which would only give a one horse race. Really leaving america no better off than when it had two parties trying to do the same thing.
    But then you made a suggestion about liking a multi party system. But that is going to require changes to your political and constitutional systems and is quite complicated.
    I refer you to a discussion paper on this, page two gives an indication of how complicated.
    http://cddrl.fsi.stanford.edu/sites/...orting-mmp.pdf

    ---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Because one is about violence or strongly implies it, while the other is about changing your mind which I think is a perfectly nice thing to do once in a while.
    That is fair enough and was not the intention i had. I did not think or intend to imply that he was actually wishing people to die. Only that non existence has little difference to death.

    I don't think the demise of american liberalism would lead to a single party. It would simply divide whatever party remained into a couple of different factions that divide about equally among the american electorate. That's how these things tend to work provided you maintain a democracy. We've always had splits, but they have not always been along the current idological divide.[COLOR="Silver"]
    The liberals unfortunately is all you have in the way of an opposition and they only form a sorry excuse of left wing politics at best. What else have you got on the left except the greens and they are too focused to ever win a majority. Which leaves you only with parties following more or less the same paths and offering the same propositions and all swing to the right.

    I have to agree with someguy in that in america left and right mean little as it is the same bird. But such is not the case in other democracies and especially in those that practice a multi party method.

  7. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    I find it interesting that the "Super pro-all-things - gay" ultra, mega defenders of man on man sexual intercourse love to "Gay shame" and call people out of the closet whenever they are of different political beliefs.

    That is true hypocrisy. The hallmark of the left

    ---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:57 PM ----------

    By the by, would you care to define hypocrisy for the audiance and explain how his last article was an example of it? Trump is, after all, pro gay marriage.
    The name of the thread is "Republican Hypocrisies".
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,271
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    I find it interesting that the "Super pro-all-things - gay" ultra, mega defenders of man on man sexual intercourse love to "Gay shame" and call people out of the closet whenever they are of different political beliefs.

    That is true hypocrisy. The hallmark of the left.
    Except, as far as I know, that never happens.

    I mean I'm aware that pro-gays do enjoy it when an anti-gay conservative is caught engaging in homosexual activity but they aren't gay shaming the person for being gay. They are hypocrisy-shaming that person for being a hypocrite.

    It's not hypocrisy to condemn another's hypocrisy.

  9. #28
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Except, as far as I know, that never happens.

    I mean I'm aware that pro-gays do enjoy it when an anti-gay conservative is caught engaging in homosexual activity but they aren't gay shaming the person for being gay. They are hypocrisy-shaming that person for being a hypocrite.

    It's not hypocrisy to condemn another's hypocrisy.
    You certainly are entitled to that opinion, that, however, is not how I view it.

  10. #29
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,271
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    You certainly are entitled to that opinion, that, however, is not how I view it.
    It's not a matter of opinion. Either these liberals have criticized the\ose particular conservatives for being gay or they haven't. I can definitely support that they have criticized these conservatives for their hypocrisy. Can you support that they criticized them just for being gay? If you can't or won't, then your assertion fails for lack of support.

  11. #30
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's not a matter of opinion. Either these liberals have criticized the\ose particular conservatives for being gay or they haven't. I can definitely support that they have criticized these conservatives for their hypocrisy.
    You can believe what you want. You can even believe that this isn't a matter of opinion if you want. It doesn't change the fact that they are trying to shame him. The cause of that shame would be his alledged homosexuality (posing for pics doesn't make you gay, that's another topic) therefore, they are gay shaming him. Being that they would be "outting" him if it were true, thats doubling down on the offense.

    Being that both gay shaming and outing people is heavily criticized by the progressive left (rightfully so, I might add) that places the hypocrisy label squarely upon them.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Can you support that they criticized them just for being gay?
    I wasnt aware that shaming someone for being gay wasnt actually gay shaming or outing them if the criticism wasnt 100% just focused on the fact that they were gay. Thats cool.

    Ill be sure to remember that if I ever decide to gay shame or out someone to include a call out of their shoes or the color of their shirt so that im not actually "Gay shaming" them. Nice to know how to get around tricky language

  12. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,271
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    You can believe what you want. You can even believe that this isn't a matter of opinion if you want.
    I've supported that it isn't a matter of opinion and you have not rebutted my support so my assertion stands.

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    It doesn't change the fact that they are trying to shame him.
    But they aren't trying to shame him for being gay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    The cause of that shame would be his alledged homosexuality (posing for pics doesn't make you gay, that's another topic) therefore, they are gay shaming him.
    No, the cause of the shame is his hypocrisy - being publicly against gays while being gay.

    The fact that his hypocrisy is due to the fact that he's anti-gay and gay at the same time does not change the fact that they are saying "shame on you" for being a hypocrite, not for being gay.

    And obviously if the basis of the shame is for being gay as opposed to being a hypocrite, then you should be able to find instances where the left criticized a gay person who was not engaging in this kind of hypocrisy. But of course you cannot because the basis of the shame IS hypocrisy, not homosexuality.
    Last edited by mican333; November 17th, 2016 at 11:18 AM.

  13. #32
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Whatever you want to believe.

  14. #33
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,271
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    Whatever you want to believe.
    It's not a matter of belief here. It's a matter of support.

    You have not supported that the shaming is based on sexual orientation as opposed to hypocrisy.

  15. #34
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    The source of the hypocrisy isn't that he's gay, I don't think that has been suggested. Rather that he is a judge who holds strict moral beliefs against certain "lifestyles" and communities - to the point that they should be sanctioned or withheld rights - yet he had no problem operating in that community when it benefitted him.

    If it turns out to be him, conclusively, his denials will just add to the hypocrisy.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  16. #35
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's not a matter of belief here. It's a matter of support.

    You have not supported that the shaming is based on sexual orientation as opposed to hypocrisy.

    It is a matter of belief and/or opinion. It is your opinion that they aren't attempting to gay shaming him and out him. It is my opinion that they are.

    Let me save everyone some time and go ahead and put the next few posts up so we can move on :

    ______________________

    Mican: "It's not an opinion or belief because........ (insert same exact opinion previously posted and rejected) "

    CowboyX: (realizes that Micans post agrees with him) Yeah! What Mican said! "

    Me: *smh* " Nope. (wonders internally if the difference between an opinion and a fact are that mysterious to some ppl)

    Mican: (looks for a word that Someguy used and decides to use the opposite of that word) "Yep"

    Cowboys : *continues to cheerlead*

    Me: *gets bored and doesn't bother to respond any longer*

    __________________

    There. Now we can move on.

    ---------- Post added at 06:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 AM ----------

    Being that this particular thread is about "Republican hypocrisy" and being that the cats who are being hypocritical for trying to (imo) gay shame and out this judge clearly aren't Republican, we are drifting off topic.

    If you want to continue this discussion (which Im not going to participate in any further) please start a new thread.

  17. #36
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Ah, the nuh-uh strategy.

    and seeing that the opposition to this judge began more than a decade ago, it's confirmed that the breaking story is only meant to point out his hypocrisy:

    Saying William Pryor Is the 'Most Demonstrably Antigay Judicial Nominee in Recent Memory,' Lambda Legal Opposes Nomination To Federal Appeals Court



    With Senate committee expected to consider Pryor's nomination to federal appeals court imminently, Lambda Legal mobilizes members, supporters to speak out for fair, unbiased courts
    APRIL 26, 2005
    (New York, April 26, 2005) — Lambda Legal today announced its opposition to the nomination of William H. Pryor Jr. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In a summary of Pryor’s record released today, Lambda Legal said he has repeatedly shown clear hostility to the rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV – and also to women, people of color, disabled people and others. Pryor has been nominated to the appeals court before but failed to win Senate confirmation, largely because of his extreme judicial views. After Pryor’s nomination failed, President Bush temporarily placed Pryor on the court while the Senate was briefly in recess. Earlier this year, President Bush again nominated Pryor to serve permanently on the Eleventh Circuit of the federal appeals court (whose judges hear a wide range of cases appealed from trial-level federal courts in Florida, Georgia and Alabama). The Senate Judiciary Committee has already held hearings on his nomination and a vote by the committee is expected soon. “William Pryor is the most demonstrably antigay judicial nominee in recent memory. It’s clear from his record that William Pryor does not belong on the federal appeals court,” said Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director of Lambda Legal. In particular, Cathcart cited several major cases where Pryor put animosity toward LGBT people ahead of constitutional and legal principles. For example, when Pryor served as Alabama’s attorney general, he wrote a friend-of-the-court brief defending Texas’s antigay sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, Lambda Legal’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court case. In that brief, Pryor made comparisons between the rights of gay people and “prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia.” Years earlier, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Romer v. Evans that a state cannot broadly prohibit local antidiscrimination ordinances barring antigay discrimination, Pryor said the ruling shows “new rules for political correctness.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has described Pryor as a “right-wing zealot [who] is unfit for confirmation.” “We oppose William Pryor not just because he disrespects the rights of LGBT Americans, but because he disrespects the legal system and our Constitution,” Cathcart said. “Pryor’s approach to the law is driven by his extremely conservative personal and political beliefs. Our nation’s judges should hear each case before them with an open mind and a fair application of the law, and William Pryor has shown that he’s incapable of doing that.” According to Lambda Legal, which released a backgrounder today on Pryor’s record and his nomination’s potential impact on LGBT people, Pryor has already done significant harm to fairness and justice during his temporary stint on the federal appeals court. Last year, Pryor cast the deciding vote to deny a full appeals court hearing for a lawsuit challenging Florida’s antigay adoption law. The court was split evenly, 6-6, on whether to review a three-judge panel’s ruling in the case. Had Pryor not been serving temporarily on the court, the full court would have heard the case. Instead, the earlier ruling that upheld the discriminatory law remained in place, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. “Several judges on the appeals court wanted to hear the case and said the law raised ‘serious and substantial questions,’ but William Pryor kept that from happening. As a result, lesbians and gay men in Florida cannot adopt children who need permanent, loving homes,” Cathcart said. In opposing Pryor’s nomination, Lambda Legal is mobilizing its 25,000-plus members to voice their concerns to members of the U.S. Senate. Lambda Legal is working with People for the American Way, Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and dozens of other groups to defeat Pryor’s nomination and make sure the nation’s courts remain fair and independent. The effort to defeat Pryor’s nomination is the latest step in Lambda Legal’s wide-ranging new national campaign, “Courting Justice: Stand Up for Fair Courts – Protect Our Rights.” The campaign aims to mobilize LGBT people, those with HIV and allies to advocate for unbiased judicial nominees, defend fair-minded judges from political attacks and support the legitimate role of courts in addressing civil rights claims. As part of the campaign, Lambda Legal will be releasing substantive material on a number of issues and nominees, giving members and the public avenues to get involved in fighting for fair courts, reaching out to activate constituencies through advertising and other vehicles and working closely with other leading civil rights and judicial organizations. Just last month, Lambda Legal also opposed the nomination of Terrence Boyle to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, citing a troubling record on disability law that jeopardizes the rights of people with HIV. “Fighting for fair courts is one of our priorities in the months ahead – and its impact will last a generation. We’re at a critical juncture where one federal nomination could make a difference between fairness and injustice for all Americans,” Cathcart said.


    *Edited. Leave the calling out, out of your post.
    Last edited by Someguy; November 18th, 2016 at 05:18 AM.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,271
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    It is a matter of belief and/or opinion. It is your opinion that they aren't attempting to gay shaming him and out him. It is my opinion that they are.
    We are talking about something that either did or did not happen (gay shaming). IF it did happen, one's opinion or belief that it did not has no bearing on the reality that it did happen. If it did not happen, one's opinion or belief that it did has no bearing on the reality that it did not happen. In other words, opinions and beliefs are irrelevant to the issue of whether it happened or not.

    So if you are saying that, for a fact, that it DID happen, you need to SUPPORT that with evidence. Saying that you believe it did or you hold the opinion that it did means NOTHING beyond informing us on what your belief/opinion is (which only matters to the extent that one cares about your personal beliefs and opinions).

    So as far as providing support that liberals are gay-shaming certain conservative anti-gay hypocrites, you have provided nothing.

    So your assertion that liberals are gay-shaming fails for lack of support. All you've told is that you think they are but again, that only matters if one cares what you think.

    But you said you want to move on from this and that's fine. In fact, you shouldn't continue to argue this point unless you can provide support for your position (and saying you personally believe it happened is not support).

  19. Thanks CowboyX thanked for this post
  20. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post

    *Edited. Leave the calling out, out of your post.
    We're still going on without you. Or do you care to offer a rebuttal now?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  21. #39
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Ive made the point that this is a matter of perception. And it is.

    Per.cep.tion
    noun
    * A way of regarding, understanding or interpreting something.

    The way I regard, understand and interpret the Liberals attacking this judge is akin to gay shaming and outing him as homosexual....if he is.

    The fact that they are ALSO calling him hypocritical, does not change this.

    Being that they claim to be against it, they are thereby, being hypocritical themselves.

    Your perception of their actions may be different. But, no matter how many challenge trains you send flying by, it doesnt make your perception anymore valid than any other.
    Last edited by Someguy; November 18th, 2016 at 01:45 PM. Reason: Cleaning up the post.

  22. #40
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,271
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    ***edited***
    Uh, what? I never said that your opinions are wrong - I said they are not a valid basis for support so your comment about me being high and mighty or whatever is just ridiculous. Again, just pointing out the fact that you have not supported your claim. Why you think that makes me a God in my own mind is beyond me.

    I have to think at this point you are familiar with the very common concept on ODN of SUPPORT OR RETRACT. Let me explain (not so much for your edification but just to make it clear what my argument is).

    You said that liberals are engaging in gay shaming. That is a claim that you made and therefore a claim that you have the burden to support. I'm asking you to support that. All you've forwarded so far is that it's a "belief" and "your opinion". Your belief/opinion IS NOT SUPPORT.

    So I'm not saying that your belief/opinion is wrong. I'm saying IT'S NOT SUPPORTED. Maybe you are completely correct but until you show evidence that you are correct, your claim is not supported. Therefore your argument fails, not for being provably wrong, but because you have not provided any evidence that it's correct.

    So let me put it this way.

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that liberals have gay-shamed certain anti-gay republican hypocrites who have been caught engaging in homosexual activity.

    If you can support your assertion, do so. If not, then your assertion fails for lack of support and cannot be repeated (in other words, it's retracted).

    Making sarcastic comments that in no way further the debate is basically spam. Really, if you aren't going to actually support your assertion, you should cease commenting on this issue.
    Last edited by Someguy; November 18th, 2016 at 01:36 PM.

  23. Likes CowboyX liked this post
 

 
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Republican Fratracide?
    By manise in forum Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2008, 10:54 AM
  2. What is a democrat? A Republican?
    By Jamie678 in forum Politics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: January 8th, 2008, 03:12 PM
  3. What it means to be a Republican
    By Booger in forum Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2006, 03:27 AM
  4. Republican Floundering
    By Fyshhed in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 5th, 2004, 07:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •