You said, "Just because you call yourself a Republican doesn't mean you are a pervert." I said "The vast majority of Republicans are not public officials." You said "So the vast majority of Repub officials are perverts." That, dude, is spin. ...and by YOUR own admission you said he probably is a Repub. But to appease your SPIN machine, I'll clear up my position by saying that IF he is in fact a Repub, then he'll just join the long list of Repubs getting busted for things contradictory to family values. Do you understand the term "platform"? Glad to know you read your own links. It doesn't seem like behavior that is "Protecting Our Families."
You are confusing "jab" with "spin." I was poking fun at your constant use of "most" and "vast" to quantify the Republican public servants who have gotten in trouble over "family values" oriented issues. You want to see an example of spin? How about this: That Page 2 reference is nothing but preamble; it holds no substance with regards to a family values type issue. Try again.
...by completely discontructing my statements and reassembling them to suit your needs. Sounds like a blast. Keep reading. Page 2 is where I started the quote since thats where it starts outlining the party platform but it continues onto page 3. The lines I gave you are found on page 3.
<b>krosfyah ...by completely discontructing my statements and reassembling them to suit your needs. Sounds like a blast.</B> I didn't deconstruct anything; I made fun of your exagerations.... but if you are thinking about killing me I'll take it all back. <b>Keep reading. Page 2 is where I started the quote since thats where it starts outlining the party platform but it continues onto page 3. The lines I gave you are found on page 3.</b> Page 2 or Page 3... it's all Preamble and says nothing substantial. Page 4 is the Table of Contents. The FIFTH CHAPTER (page 87) of the work is entitled "Protecting Our Families."
Giddy, I don't think you can win the debate on the Republican platform vs Democrat platform on *family values.* Yep, I actually read the friggin' documents you provided, both of them.
If you were just making fun ...then pls use smileys ...or I might just think about killing you. I know you know how as you did above. So was it a joke or were you just spinning again? Ever take a writing or journalism class? If you have something important to say, you better say it at the beginning of your piece. "Protecting our families" was mentioned VERY EARLY in the document. It is clearly a very important part of the GOP platform. (You are being petty be even taking issue with me on this.) They then go on to detail it later. So now that we got that straight, in summary: Your buddy in Homeland Security, assuming he's a Repub (and that's a safe assumption) is yet another example of how the GOP commits the worse kind of hypocracy ...preying on children. Thanks for playing.
No but perhaps the girls parents should think twice before assuming the Republican party is really all that interested in "protecting the family." This is my way of saying that articles introduce important subjects at the beginning and expound on them later.
I'm amazed that you still want to blame a political party with the more stringent platform on the issue at hand for the human failing of one of it's "members." That is just stunning. If this was a 500-word high school essay, I could see where you are coming from This is a statement of party platform-- far more comlex than a simple essay or news story.
Giddy, In GOP 2004 platform: - "family" and "families" occur 84 times; - "marriage" and "marriages" appear 19 times; - "father", "fathers", and "fatherhood" are found 10 times. By contrast, in Dem 2004 platform: - "family" or "families" are mentioned 61 times; - "marriage" appears twice; - "fathers" and "fatherhood" are found twice. Futher, the words "marriage" and "father/fatherhood" are merely used in the Dem platform this way: On the other hand, in the GOP platform, there is an entire chapter -- PROTECTING OUR FAMILIES -- dedicated to "Family Values", with specific paragraphs emphasizing the significances of "marriage" and "father/fatherhood": Republican Party for family values, sanctity of marriage, fatherhood? EXPOSED and BUSTED
There is no doubt that the Republican Party has a significantly more public stance on a more broadly-defined notion of Family Values... but that is not what this spat is about.
That's all I've been saying all along ...but you pick me apart on semantics and technicalities. As we have already discussed (I think it was post #27), this is just the latest installment. If it was just ONE guy, then yes it would be silly. If you don't agree with me, fine. But at least acknowledge the argument and agree to disagree rather than continually twisting my words. Which is exactly why they introduce their platform at the beginning and expound on it later.
It need not be said it's so obvious. The discussion that ensued was due to your indictment of a political party because of individual failings. Do you remember writing this: "... perhaps the girls parents should think twice before assuming the Republican party is really all that interested in "protecting the family." I looked and looked but couldn't find pro-sexual predator language in the Republican platform statement. This was not about semantics and technicalities. It's about your indictment of some one-half of the US voting population because of party affiliation... and being smug about it.
Okay, let's play... 1. So the enunciation of the rights of the branches of the federal government is not as important as something (anything) found in the preamble... because of priority appearance? Is that right? 2. The Bill of Rights is the least important because it is only tacked on to the end? Is that right?
All I said was that "family values" is a big part of the GOP platform. You've already acknowledged that it is. Next. You can "play" if you like. ...and I've already outlined the argument that this isn't about an "individual" but instead a pattern of behavior ...this is merely the latest example.
pre·am·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prmbl, pr-m-) n. A preliminary statement, especially the introduction to a formal document that serves to explain its purpose. An introductory occurrence or fact; a preliminary. Oh yeah? Your turn! That's not what you said in the quote I cited. You suggested that the girl's parents should be warned about the party not any particular individual.
you already conceded the GOP holds family values as important. Why are you still talking about the preamble? Yup and I stand by that comment. And this partiuclar individual is the latest example of why the girls parents should be careful.
Because you keep making such a deal about "first appearance" meaning everything when it doesn't. The preamble has a specific purpose to introduce the meat of the text. Further the "family values" content of the preamble is essentially content-less except to use the word, yet you want to maintain that its appearance on page 3-4 is somehow significant. It's not. So she should just be afraid of her safety whenever a Republican is around? I rest my case.
