http://bbs.clutchfans.net/search.php?searchid=84187 It's not that hard. 'foggy inexact memory' isn't even in play. Your positions are clear based on the threads you start. Period. I don't have to worry about my memory. The search function does nicely. A bevy of Christo-Fascist postings, balanced by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and George Will with a few Jingoist/anti-muslim threads sprinkled in for flavor speaks for itself. Your belief in the value of obfuscation is Bush-esque.
That link goes nowhere. This is pretty funny. I haven't listened to Rush regularly in about five years. I can honestly only remember one or two GWill articles I posted and one was not very George Will-esque. That was recently, too. Coulter is just a lot of fun to deal with. She has some truth and slaps people around with it. I'm not saying she is bonafide on target all the time but I give her more credit than people who won't listen just because they don't like her style.
It expired. I can't make a persistent link. Try: Search: Threads Started By: giddyup ; Forum: BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion and child forums on your own.
What was the thread about and what was my egregious POV? I really want the one where I'm comparing gay marriage to pedophiles marrying their child victims. Look, you brought it up in an accusatory way. I think you should find it or apologize.
LOL. You really enjoy playing the poor, wronged innocent, don't you? That is one of your fairly consistent roles. I'm embarassed and saddened that I have enough free time on my hands to actually waste my time looking through your old threads to satisfy you. And flipping through all those threads, I am more than satisfied that my original opinion is still correct. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=118571 Major pegged you better than I could.
I too am glad that you have so much to read but you should read on. Did you read my first reply to SamFisher? "I heard someone ask this question. I think it is a provocative one. If you don't want to contribute... don't. Sam, I don't believe I need to take instruction from you about how to take care of my four children between the ages of 4 and 22. Thank you though! It's just a discussion." Then of course you KNEW BETTER: "It sounds more like insinuation to me and backhanded scorn than an actual question to me. If you hate gay people just come out and say it already." and then this: "Either: 1. You really did get this question from somewhere else and are too dense to understand the implications. 2. You are being deceptive and are asking a leading question to make a point." If you go to the last word in MY post above, you'll find the word DISCUSSION. What's wrong with a discussion? Provocative viewpoints launch the best discussions. Give it a rest. There's no point in arguing with your second-guessing and your suppositions about my motives. As I said in the thread: "If you would just stop second-guessing and get with the program, everything would be fine. It was a queston that someone I know raised. I just inserted it here... without all your nefarious ulterior motives. It is a shocking question-- nothing wrong with that unless you are self-strangling on political correctness. The question does not seek to ridicule gay rights, it seeks to post a puzzling question about how crucial and complicated our response would be if there were found to be a genetic basis for sexual interest in youth."
Did you run away, Otto? I didn't say what you said I did- neither did my friend who is a clinical psychologist, a liberal independent and a long-time friend and actually raised the question at lunch one day. Please stop insisting that your version of my reality is the correct one. Take my posts at face value and quit trying to overlay or undermine with your hostile interpretations.
I wrote the following a couple of days ago but I thought I'd made my point well enough so I didn't post at the time. But if you want to continue, that's fine with me. As I said in the other thread, perhaps you are just too stupid to realize what you are doing. Perhaps I am simply giving you too much credit for intelligence. But I guess you don't even understand what I'm talking about when I point out that your propensity to run away. I always clearly state what I think instead of asking leading, insinuating questions like you. You post things with a clearly embedded agenda, but refuse to acknowledge that agenda and distance yourself from the things you post. As long as you continue to post these 'innocent questions', when I see them I will continue to call you out. Period. If you don't like me drawing the lines between your own postings, pointing out the patterns, stop posting the same leading 'innocent questions' which are so thoroughly leading and political. If you want to post freaky right wing Christo-fascist cultural paranoia, then acknowledge your viewpoint. If you show your colors before posting - if you embrace the viewpoints that you are endorsing - we have no problems. You are standing in front of a building. Smoke is pouring out of the windows. I can feel the heat from the flames. You stand in front telling everybody that there is no fire, that it is all an innocent figment of imagination. You will excuse me if I trust what my eyes and ears tell me as opposed to what you are saying. I have a question What... If there were no more Juden in die Welt? Jeez... Why so jumpy? It is just a question. Something that I heard my friend Herr Rosenberg talking about. What? I'm not saying I advocate it or anything. (Of course I won't ever come out and say what I do advocate in plain language and this and all my other questions conveniently probe into my freaky agenda of killing Juden or invading Russland) Political correctness? Blah Blah Blah. Plain Language. Blah Blah Blah. Straight talk! Blah Blah Blah. Last champion of free speech! Blah Blah Blah. Sieg Heil... er... Blah Blah Blah. Just something to think about. Blah Blah Blah.
Where'd you get your secret de-coder ring? I'm really tempted to claim victory here... what with your resorting to name-calling and posting images of Hitler. That's desperate and despicable. I didn't know it was a sin to want to know what others think about something. I guess with your made-up mind and your "access" to mine you just can't relate... All your bluster and blather is based on assigning a sinister motive to my reprise of an honest question that was asked by a professional man about a discussion in his field. Sad. You weren't there. You have to ignore my explanation and surmise my motives to make your point. The question arose in a yeah-but way by someone who is not opposed to gay marriage (as I am not -- you still haven't apologized for that). It hits upon the nature vs. nurture issue of a homosexual orientation. It's an honest, academic question which has legitimacy. Why do you persist on ignoring that? If we pre-suppose that homosexuality is "natural" and use that as a basis for arguing on behalf of homosexual marriage, what are we to do if pedophilia is found to have a genetic predisposition likewise? That's the question he raised. Is it not a legitimate ethical question for science? It's a fair question whether you like it or not. I'm only sorry that you can only compare its raising to one about the legitimacy of The Final Solution. That says more about your mind-frame than anything else. Open it up.
So you guys like the license that the marriage license gives the state over your existence? I understand that you might need to push aside some of the overtly religious overtones here but doesn't it bother you the way this piece of paper has morphed from a seldom used tool of the state into a wide-ranging requirement? Life has gotten more complex... granted.
My marriage is my marriage. I don't think twice about the certificate. I don't think twice about community property laws (except for how they impact estate planning after I'm dead). All these are impactful on marriage at large. They have very little to do with my marriage.
Likewise. I was not even aware of this. Fortunately, I've not had to bang up against it like the folks in Wisconsin. What if?
I doubt seriously this article is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth in regard to that story.
