YYZ30 wrote:If it makes someone happy, why do I care? If a male wants to live with another male, and it makes him happy, why should I care?
Jeez people this isn't the dark ages!
Just sayin'....if they want to pitch and catch it's none of my business..
Just don't harsh me and mine for having faith.
No, Siggy you misunderstood me. I should have been clearer.
I understand there are people of faith who are against this, and I just have a different view, thats all. If we all had the same view, this world would be a boring place.
I would never denounce someone's religious beliefs. I apologize if you thought thats what I was doing.
It's delightful to see the tables turned on the age-old oppressors, and to see how they spin the evolved, progressive modern-day opinions into some kind of reverse witch hunt against them. For brief moments, it fills me with glee (No, glee is not a metaphor for some kind of gay sex act! )
Big Blue Owl wrote:
Again, how can this point be debated unless the meat of the book or even the words from the man himself (via the live interview) have been digested? Unless you know what he has to say, hypothesizing on things we know nothing about seems futile, if not reactionary.
That's a good point. I should shut up until I've read the book.
However, I never read any of the books written by the Clinton insiders who ratted them out. I doubt I'll read the book by the Bush insider ratting him out either.
That's not at all what I meant. I'm saying, to just throw out a blanket statement something like, "he's lying", etc. may be a bit premature, but said in such a way as to hopefully get a chuckle or two.
Ah, screw it. I'm no good at this.
I'll bale out, you stay. Nobody wants to hear my opinions in this section anyway.
Big Blue Owl wrote:That's not at all what I meant. I'm saying, to just throw out a blanket statement something like, "he's lying", etc. may be a bit premature, but said in such a way as to hopefully get a chuckle or two.
Ah, screw it. I'm no good at this.
I'll bale out, you stay. Nobody wants to hear my opinions in this section anyway.
No way! You said the right thing and I was indeed being reactionary.
For the last year I've been trying to get a little better at true analysis, rather than just an ideological reaction. I recently read the Clarence Thomas book, My Grandfather's Son (in fact it was so good that after reading it to myself I read it aloud to my daughters). A couple of times in there he talks about how a judge is required to not jump to any conclusions but to truly study all of the facts before forming any opinion. That's really a tough thing for pretty much anyone. All thinking humans have their opinions, and it's not easy to put them on a shelf in order to sincerely analyze something.
So, yours was a good reminder that I don't want to just be an ideologue, but a thinker.
Thanks, buddy!
Last edited by ElfDude on Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
You are wise, my friend. If I could only practice what I preach. Much of what I post is from the gut and sometimes I get lucky, either with a laugh or a genuinely (yet rare) bit of brightness, but at least half of the time I revisit and see that I've been just the kind of reactionary butt-nugget that I try to avoid.
YYZ30 wrote:If it makes someone happy, why do I care? If a male wants to live with another male, and it makes him happy, why should I care?
Jeez people this isn't the dark ages!
Just sayin'....if they want to pitch and catch it's none of my business..
Just don't harsh me and mine for having faith.
No, Siggy you misunderstood me. I should have been clearer.
I understand there are people of faith who are against this, and I just have a different view, thats all. If we all had the same view, this world would be a boring place.
I would never denounce someone's religious beliefs. I apologize if you thought thats what I was doing.
No no Brudda. It's all good. I'm speaking in the third person. I just
think it's interesting that some countries you would NEVER suspect...
(CANADA? c'mon...)are persecuting believers.
Personally, I could give a rat's ass what others do behind closed doors.
I'm through with this topic too. Why did I post this anyway?
I guess I thought it was interesting that Canada would use strongarm
tactics against their own Christians. What a shame.
Big Blue Owl wrote:You are wise, my friend. If I could only practice what I preach. Much of what I post is from the gut and sometimes I get lucky, either with a laugh or a genuinely (yet rare) bit of brightness, but at least half of the time I revisit and see that I've been just the kind of reactionary butt-nugget that I try to avoid.
And thanks for not making fun of my "thinkier" typo!
Okay, this isn't exactly a headline since it's an editorial. But it's intellectually honest so I thought I'd link to it (and besides, I agree with it! Duh... ). It's in the LA Times and written by James Kirchick who is the editor for The New Republic Magazine, a left leaning political journal that a right-wing radical Christian-conservative like me would normally ignore.
But again, it's an intellectually honest piece and I found it refreshing.
The italic part of this quote is what I've been thinking about for quite some time now:
Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.
(No, glee is not a metaphor for some kind of gay sex act! 
)
). It's in the LA Times and written by James Kirchick who is the editor for The New Republic Magazine, a left leaning political journal that a right-wing radical Christian-conservative like me would normally ignore.
