No. Steophan is decidedly non-religious, and he clearly understands the dramatic error you’re making.
I do think child rape is abhorrent, if that’s the charge you’re making.
Don’t you?
Dear Bricker,
In case you missed my post, here it is again. Let’s examine the evidence together and decide if you are mistaken.
Whatever makes you sleep at night. But it is nice to have someone who may actually know more than you do to refer to. There is no actual way to depope someone. Linky
So, it pretty much looks like the pope can make any law he wants to in whatever form he wants to as long as it doesn’t contradict what jesus or god has already said and it looks like if anyone objects they can go and pound sand. Unless you are suggesting they break the law to do it some other way like ignoring or trying to depose him?
I said:
“After all, the people that are posting here that are implying Law should be punished regardless of extant laws…”
You then asked:
“List the posters who have explicitly stated that Law should be punished…”
I invite you to examine the disconnect between the claim I made, and the one you’re now asking me to prove.
A pope cannot make any law he pleases. The Pope’s governance of the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit – or at least, that’s what the popes believe to be true.
So your demand is that the Pope fabricate a message from God – that he lie about guidance from the Holy Spirit – in order to change church law.
The Holy Spirit has commanded all of them to hide and protect Law and Wesolowski. :rolleyes:
Convenient, huh? Convincing, not quite.
Very well, list the posters who are *implying *that “Law should be punished regardless of extant laws…”, along with their political affiliations, please.
Oh, and also cite their specific language where they *imply *it, please. Because I don’t want anyone to think that you may be *inferring *in excess of the evidence.
(1) Uzi, liberal
Uzi, not a Liberal:
That’s 0-1 so far.
Uzi is a liberal.
Uzi claims to not be a liberal, of course, but Uzi’s political positions are indistinguishable from a liberal’s. Therefore, Uzi is a liberal.
He says he isn’t, and you don’t get to decide his political affiliation for him, so no.
And I don’t care what your edit says, score stands, 0-1.
That’s not for you to decide. My point is that he’s a liberal by virtue of his political positions, not by virtue of his self-identification.
A liberal isn’t merely someone who claims to be a liberal. A far-left liberal might demur and say, “I’m a radical,” or “I’m in the conservative wing of the far-left,” or some equally obfuscating nonsense. But it’s the sum of their political positions that makes them liberal.
In Uzi’s case, he argues for traditionally liberal positions against traditionally conservative positions. That makes him liberal, and he cannot change that merely by denying that he is.
Of course, if you (or he) could show his arguing for traditionally conservative positions, that would be good evidence that I am mistaken.
I’m not going to continue this conversation. You don’t get to pretend that he’s a secret liberal after he has told you *directly *and *explicitly *that he’s not. Judges have ruled: You’re wrong. Move on.
Here’s the score so far: you have judged all liberals (millions and millions of people) based on the postings of one person who isn’t a liberal. This is not an impressive performance so far.
emphasis coding added by me - kd99
On the face of it, I suppose not, especially if one reads your qualification as “so far as I am inclined to attempt to discern.”
I’ve voted Conservative in every election I’ve been able to vote in.
Ah, maybe that’s it. A Conservative almost anywhere else in the world *looks *like a liberal to a loyal-to-the-core US Republican.
Which still doesn’t explain why **Bricker **thinks dispensing with the rule of law is a liberal idea. That is best explained by his using the word as a simple epithet for anyone who disagrees with him about anything.
No doubt **Bricker **is preparing a devastating comeback. While he’s busy preparing that, I submit the following piece of evidence:
By **Bricker’s **reckoning, 8 of 10 Americans is therefore a dirty Liberal. Hard to explain election results given that piece of information, but I’m sure he’ll find a way.
By the way, Bricker:
I’m not going to start in on this one yet, but rest assured I’m keeping track.
What judges? You?
Look, you don’t get to pretend he’s not a liberal simply because he refuses to admit he’s a liberal.
Why is his self-serving claim of more probative value than his actual, voiced opinions.
He’s a Canadian, so placing him on the liberal-conservative spectrum might be a bit more complex than usual.
He certainly stands on your side of the debate over on the Voter ID/Voter suppression thread.