But that doesn’t require “imposing” Christian values, unless you assume that “Christian values” can’t include freedom of religion for non-Christians.
But I see that you’re leaving the thread, so I’ll shut up now!
Does anyone else see anything strange in that concept anyway? Whatever happened to the power of the individual? The word family when coupled with values or faith has come to have a meaning of its own. It’s a buzz word. A signal. A subtle suggestion.
It may be disregarded if one chooses.
But it is not a lie to interpret it as suggesting pro-Christian, pro-life, pro-prayer in schools, anti-SSM.
LHoD, yes I think you were right on this one. But I’ve not seen Shodan like this in a long, long time. Maybe something is really bugging him.
He’s right. I intended to use the quotes to indicate that I was being facetious, but it obviously just mucked things up pretty bad. I’m an idiot. I apologize. I’ll try to remember to never do it again.
There’s only one minor problem with your thesis. The CWA has absolutely no provisions geared toward Christianity, abortion (or anti-abortion), prayer in school, or SSM. You can imagine it if you like, but it’s not in the text. You could probably squeeze some anti- sex education out of #4, but that’s about it. That represents maybe 2% of the CWA.
It’s actually a lot simpler than that. Republicans like to market themselves as pro-family and they like to market Democrats as anti-family. For example: Republicans (supposedly) will give you a tax break so Mom can stay home with the kids if she wants. Democrats will raise your taxes to proved day-care, but that forces Mom to work whether she wants to or not. Republicans want to repeal the “marriage tax”. Democrats don’t care whether marriage caries a tax or not.
n.b.: Don’t ask me to defend that, I’m just reporting it.
This is pretty much it. The Contract with America does not say what Daniel claims it did.
If a Republican had done what he did, he would be screaming bloody murder. But when he does it, it’s just a paraphrase.
:shrugs:
I’ve been rather busy at work, so I have not had the chance to post as much as I would like. Sorry if any of this looked like a drive-by, but fortunately John Mace and Weirddave are here to pick up the slack.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not sure John Mace is saying what you think he is saying.
This thread isn’t about the contract with america. It’s about your attempt at a gotcha moment on LHOD.
Ah, the hypothetical condemnation, one of Shodan’s staples. Can I play? If a Democrat had started the war in Iraq, Shodan would have become a stripper in a seedy joint in Taipei. Hey, that’s fun! It absolves me of the need to argue based on what’s actually happened–when I argue about what hasn’t happened, anything goes!
Again, the Contract does not explicitly say that they’re going to build a government on Christian values. I believe, for the reasons I cited above, that this is a perfectly valid inference from the noted phrase in the CwA.
Daniel
Fair enough, AQA. As I said before, I think you had a good point re: Kennedy’s response being pretty lame. I just didn’t like how you supported it :).
Daniel
Actually, yes it is.
You’ve never condemned anyone for mischaracterizing a position?
Right, we already got that part - it’s OK when you do it.
In the same way, it is a perfectly valid inference that Democrats support terrorism, that Kerry lied about his service record, the ACLU wants to ban Christianity, etc., etc.
Regards,
Shodan
No. I’m condemning you right this very second, for example, for mischaracterizing my position. You apparently find it much easier to argue with the voices in your head than with real people.
Does ANYONE here besides Shodan think this is an accurate characterization either of what I’m saying or of what I’m doing?
Daniel
Well, recapping the scoring here at halftime, we find:
Five posters essentially agreeing with LHoD.
Two posters agreeing with Shodan.
Four posters ragging on Shodan in general.
Six posters making peripheral points or engaging in genial wordplay.
Viewing the action from up here in the broadcast booth, I’d say Shodan’s got his work cut out for him in the second half. We’ll need to see a more focused defense plus much better support from the bench.
Hope this helps.
That would be Weirddave and who?
You know, I think if you actually read what I said, I haven’t offered word one about anyone’s position on the CWA, I merely clarified what I thought Shodan was upset about. Nobody has asked me about how I feel about Daniel’s CWA paraphrase, and I viewed it as a side issue when I was making my previous posts.
So that would be zero posters agreeing with Shodan.
I could be wrong, but as I read Weirddave and John Mace, while neither of them may agree with my paraphrase of the CwA, neither of them has suggested that there was anything dishonest about my paraphrase, either. When asked what was dishonest about my paraphrase, Weirddave said, “I dunno. You’ll have to ask Shodan.”
As such, Shodan’s alone, as near as I can tell, in claiming that I’m a “fucking liar.” I suppose that’s the burden of being an intellectual maverick and free-thinker.
Daniel
WeirdDave, I got that you were just attempting to translate a position, and not defend it - I’m a careful reader 
.
Shodan - who do you think you’re fooling? Really? Who do you think is buying this? Clothahump, are you in here? What’s your take?
If you feel this way, why did you not debate his acknowledged interpretation in the original thread, instead of stalking him around the boards and sniping with accusations of dishonesty, buffed up with your own unacknowledged embellishments?
Because as far as I can see, there’s only one answer, which is that you’re being a coward. The fact that you choose to hide behind Weirddave and John Mace, who are respectively merely explaining your position and debating in good faith about reasonable interpretations of the CWA, merely confirms it. LHoD has readily acknowledged that his interpretations are his own, and been willing to debate them (heck, this thread is practically begging you to do so). You, on the other hand, have yet to even acknowledge your earlier misrepresentations as such, let alone try and justify them. I know exactly who’s being dishonest here, and it’s not LHoD.
Oh, but I’m sorry; this is all reducible to US partisan politics, and the cough fact that as a Republican, you are persecuted on this board. My mistake.
I remember as a kid realizing that folks tend to see in other folks what they’ve got int themselves. It was many years later that I learned the word “projection.” I don’t know whether everyone does it, but certainly some do it more than others. Shodan is Lord High Emperor of Projection. If Projection were an Olympic sport, there’d be constant calls for him to undergo steroids tests.
Near as I can tell, he views the world in an extraordinarily partisan fashion, and therefore believes that his political opponents must do the same thing. He debates dishonestly, and so he believes that his oiltical opponents must do the same thing. He commits the very sin that he condemns others for, and so he believes that others must do the same thing. He takes projection to a meta level.
Daniel
There are two points of contention here. Whether or not **LHoD **accurately paraphrased the CWA is debateable. Reasonable people can hold different opinions about that. He put enough caveats on his paraphrase that I have no problem just seeing it as his opinion. Besides, that was just one line of the CWA, not the whole thing. And, frankly, your representation of his paraphrase was sloppy at best, dishonest at worst. You not only took it out of context, but deleted the crtical part of the CWA which he was referring to. So, no, I’m not picking up any slack here.
The other issue, which is what started this whole thing, was the proper way to paraphrase so that it’s not interpreted as a quote. **LHoD **did that exactly as one should-- he explicitly called it a paraphrase, didn’t put it in quotes, and said it was a lefty’s opinion to boot. The other paraphrase, from **AQA **was sloppy and he has come here to admit it. His paraphrase **did **look like a misquote. I haven’t debtate with **AQA **that much, but my recollection is that he’s been an honest debater, so I take him at his word when he says it was unintentional.
Now that’s a weird typo. Teach me to type while I look out the window. Political opponents, natch.
Daniel