I can believe it. I make conversation like that all the time. For example, I go into the lunchroom at work and say, “Billy Bob Thornton could rape your grandma and this group would defend him.”*
And then we talk about the Dodgers.
Oh wow, should I get in the FBI relocation program? Maybe get massive plastic surgery and move to Bolivia? I wouldn’t want to incur the wrath of the Bryan Ekers.
My wisecrack about Hilary really hurt your feelings. Maybe try not to be so attached to politicians. Works for me.
It was the mention of the Dodgers that gave me away, I bet.
Is that just platonic? Or does Bryan pwn you hard every night too? Just curious.
Are you implying Bryan and I have intercourse on a nightly basis? All because Hilary Clinton? That’s amazing. And kind of homophobic, but c’est la vie.
And, are you truly a grownup who uses “pwn”?
That was for dropzone, so no.
Just making sure you understand.
That stupid shit proliferates on the web? Well aware already.
Mea culpa. Got my hopes up this strapping Bryan Ekers might be taking a shine to me and it went to my head.
It’s that you’re so predictable. And you waste bandwidth on tautologies:
“If the law is on the side of [arbitrary right-wing asshole] then the law is on the side of [asshole].”
(Even ignoring your insistence on defending a horrid war criminal, why the need to post what is, in effect, just a tautology?)
Oh sure, every now and then you’ll throw a bone to the center-left rationalists just to pretend at impartiality. Meanwhile you hijack a thread to defend Karl Rove reflexively while displaying total ignorance about the man’s resume.
You’re so very sanctimonious when the letter of the law is on your side, but happy to stretch the letter whenever it suits. Your postings’ value sunk to zero, IMO, when you claimed that Clinton’s semen stain was a bigger crime than Bush’s war that killed a million Iraqis and cost trillions of $$. (Clinton was impeached, Bush wasn’t. :smack: )
Post something that provokes thought or suggests a hint of compassion or understanding and I’ll give you a “Kudos! Man bites dog at last.” But lately all we see from you is predictable and stale tripe.
Somewhere out there, a troll just came in his pants.
Dudes- DNFTT.
Well, plus the occasional reminder of the plenary power of the legislature.
No problem. The quote was kind of ambiguous, I realize now, and when being piled on (rightly or wrongly, I’m not taking a position there) it’s easy to feel attacked. And I don’t think implying one poster may have a gay crush for another is insulting because homosexuality. I was just going for a play on the word “pwn”.
But I’ll bow out now, since it seems to have spun DrDeth into a tizzy. Stay cool bro.
That’s not really what I claimed.
It’s not at all what I claimed.
I claimed, and still do, that Bush’s war wasn’t a crime at all, and that Clinton lied under oath, which is a crime.
Here’s an example of the fallacy you’re trying out for size:
Stale bread crumbs are better than nothing.
Nothing is better than a thick, juicy steak!
Therefore, stale bread crumbs are better than a thick juicy steak.
That’s called the Fallacy of Equivocation, because it equivocates between the two meanings for the same word.
The idea you ascribe to me also equivocates between two meanings: the word ‘crime,’ can mean an act that is foolish or wrong (“They traded Olden Polynice for Scottie Pippen – what a crime!”) and it can also mean an act punishable by penal sanctions (“Lying under oath is a crime.”)
But thanks. This thread was an uncomfortable look at apparent conservative idiocy. Your post highlighted the more common liberal idiocy that sustains my sojourns here.
I think the better answer to that for rational discourse, Bricker, is something like “Bush’s war wasn’t a crime (according to my understanding of the law and blah blah blah legal stuff), while Clinton’s lie under oath was a crime, but I certainly agree with you that Bush’s war was much more immoral, and much more damaging to America, then Clinton’s lie under oath or any sexual indiscretions”. Assuming you believe that, of course.
I agree the war was much more damaging to the country. I don’t think I agree it was immoral, however, because I believe it arose from genuine, although mistaken, beliefs.
Of course, I don’t think Clinton’s lie was all that immoral, either.
That doesn’t seem like the right criteria for immoral/not immoral – in my opinion, plenty of greatly evil acts have occurred due to “genuine, although mistaken, beliefs”. I’ll skip over the obvious (and fraught) ones like slavery and the Holocaust – but how about war time massacres? A soldier might genuinely (though mistakenly) believe that a village is hiding enemies, and believe that those enemies will kill them if they depart, and engage in evil and cruel acts against the villagers because he thinks they are hiding enemy soldiers. This, to me, is just as immoral as a soldier who might engage in the same evil and cruel actions out of malice or sadism.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Catholic Church strongly opposed the war. And, to be sure, people can certainly make mistakes AND start an immoral war.
Democrating while Intelligent White Female.