He’s not “blaming the Democrats”. He probably erroneously assumes I am one so he was appealing to something I might personally respond to, which is valid enough. He was making the point that the problem is systemic and crosses the aisle, and he’s right.
We’ve gone from trolls, to fundies, to gay marriage… Ah, I see now. The circle is complete.
I intended nothing personal either way. And I did not know you are gay; therefore, it was impossible for me to imply a lack of initiative on your part for securing your own rights. I have expressed the belief many times that peaceful honest people should be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way. That includes gay people. It is the heart of my philosophy, and I’ve never understood why so many gays reject it. Or… more precisely, I guess, they embrace it for themselves, but not necessarily for others (private ownership of property, and so forth.)
John Kerry expressed opposition to gay marriage in 1996, and supported a ban on gay marriage for Massachusetts. (Cite, if needed.) And in general, the people one might expect to fight hardest for gay marriage (the Democratic leaders) have done precious little about it. Even if they come out and declare straight up, “I support gay marriage”, it is an empty sentiment if they don’t use their offices to facilitate it.
I still believe that the media are the main culprits in propping up the fundamentalist viewpoint by constantly putting it on display. They like it when Falwell comes on their shows and blames gays for hurricanes because it’s provocative. It’s the same reason they don’t have “reality” shows that really are just shows about people living their ordinary lives. They choose spice over meat. They don’t care about the steak; they just care about the sizzle.
Maybe in his case it means “dick”? 
Liberal, I’m finding the topic of media responsibility in the fundamentalist “craze” interesting, but wondering if perhaps we should start a GD thread for it. We’re buried in three hijacks, not that anyone cares on page nine, but I’d like to hear from some of the usual suspects. Unless it’s been discussed and I missed it?
I don’t get why you don’t get that queer people usually saddle up with other liberal causes. For one, when nowhere else will take you, you learn to call it home.
And I fully agree.
I am going to step back from this now. I am not defending Harris, or claiming that I fully understand his arguments and given that I am only 1/5th through this book I won’t argue the veracity of the claim.
Ensign Edison said something that reminded me of the book and I was curious if he/she had read it.
My other tongue-in-cheek thread was euthanised, so please allow me the courtesy to transcribe my poem here:
An Ode to Bert
Badchad, badchad, may I count the ways
you make me want to scream
In pain, in joy, with laughter and tears
Your one-trick ponly comforts all my fears
Stalking, sniping, and being a fucking jerk
I loathe your attitude
But through thick and thin, you are a member
From January and even to December
People may want to ban your guts,
you filthy sack of shit,
But like i said before with my writing in the sand
even a troll may carry a flower
in his ugly, oafish hand
So let us see more of you, more and more and more!
until your being fills us to the brim, and your hatred stuffs our pores
You may be rude and lame and droll
But, I for one, welcome our new overlord troll
/bow
Can’t I just call him a jackass? It’s soooo much shorter and at least as accurate.
I think argumentum ex ano is closer to what you mean. 
The LP would love to have you.
How did this turn out to be out **Liberal ** again?
Oh, wait…
Yes, we’ve gone in a full circle around that jerk. If only there were a term to describe this …
Well, if you really must make a reasonable and sensible summary of something quite complex and speculative, then… yes. I suppose so. 
Jodi, would you please respond to post #315? Thank you.
Wow, renaissance chad.
Cisco:
Sure.
badchad hypothesized some “onlooker” who might “notice” this or “think” that about my posting behavior, and whom I might want to gratify by explaining myself. I replied that I wasn’t interested in “convincing the fictional anonymous onlooker.”
You then out of left field weighed in with a gratuitous “dubious” smilie to take issue with a grand total of three words in my post – “fictional anonymous onlooker” – and to point out that many people may be viewing this thread, thereby completely missing the point, which was that badchad’s hypothetical “onlooker” is completely fictional, which is all I said.
IOW, you jumped in to nitpick a very minor and tangential part of my post, threw in the dubious smilie, and managed to miss my point completely at the same time. So, yes, go ahead and call it “irascible.” Feel free to respond in a similar fashion if I ever concentrate my full attention on three words in any one of your posts.
Since you asked.
What do you think of the lies you’ve been telling and the false accusations you’ve been making? Against whom are you sinning?
Try to note that this is completely separate from the (alleged) lies others have told about you.
I’m not trying to be a jerk here but I swear to god I still don’t understand what you are trying to say.
What I know is:
[ul][li]You called anonymous onlookers fictional[/li][li]I, conclusively, I think, demonstrated that anonymous onlookers are not fictional at all[/li][li]You snapped at me for doing so[/li][li]You stated that you didn’t care if anonymous onlookers were present or not[/li][li]I still can’t tell if you believe that people other than the recorded participants are viewing this (and all other) threads 
[/li][/ul]
I’m afraid I must disagree with you, Liberal. I have not, in my experience, met a fundamentalist Christian who would activity work against the faith in general of a liberal Christian. Moreover, he’s still dissing on himself on a regular basis, if he’s a fundamentalist (i.e., saying that liberal Christianity is just as bogus as fundamentalist Christianity implies that both are bogus.)