Cheney says goodbye to his last shred of decency

[rtwngAvngr]

Syntax, I want blood this time. You know a lot of big words, and your attitude is there, but you still fall short most of the time.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

OF COURSE I MEANT LIBERALS!!!! ALL LIBERALS ARE MORONS!!! ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE BRILLIANT!!!! I was hoping someone would help the truth of my post shine through. Thanks RWA!!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
OF COURSE I MEANT LIBERALS!!!! ALL LIBERALS ARE MORONS!!! ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE BRILLIANT!!!! I was hoping someone would help the truth of my post shine through. Thanks RWA!!

No problem. Anytime. you've made a lot of progress since you were here last!

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Sorry RWA. Some other time okay. I'm going to pick my brother up from karate, then I'm going to bed; I have to work really early. I actually liked the two of us going bonkers on one another last time.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Sorry RWA. Some other time okay. I'm going to pick my brother up from karate, then I'm going to bed; I have to work really early. I actually liked the two of us going bonkers on one another last time.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

I'm glad to have made such progress.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I think that is a pretty lame explanation. When I told Leahy to fuck off I was speaking for the GOP? I'm not sure I see the BIG deal in this whole thing, but if you're going top tell him to Fuck Off at least stand behind your words, and don't justify it by saying it needed to be said for the good of the party.

Telling other senators to fuck off on the floor of the senate is not something that needs to be done.

When the guy is grandstanding and calling Bush and Cheney Liars the previous day and wanting them brought up on Treason charges, then wants his picture taken with the VP, how is Cheney supposed to act? I find it refreshing to know someone has strong convictions and doesnt sell their soul for a few more votes on a bullshit photo op.

I'd a told him to fuck off also.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Syntax_Divinity, i think you should start your own thread with rules mentioned in the first post of the kind of debate you want, that way you won't get any of the haters.

On the Cheney swearing thing, I think it was a small thing, but so was Cheney's decency, which is why I said it was all gone.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

If I offended you, I didn't mean to. I think our VP is a deceptive and dangerous man; I just don't think his language means much of anything.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
I have. Very few people seem interested in the threads I start. I started a thread about the looming and monsterously salient issue of the appointment of two, perhaps three Supreme Court justices by our next elected president. Very few people seemed interested. Most people on this board want to debate things which are not debatable, i.e. morality, religion, cultural conditioning. I was just pointing out how we should focus our energy on real issues and solutions, not all of this lame, amorphous bullshit.

I'm just curious to know what screwed up world you grew up in where contemplation on the next Supreme Court justice is debatable but religion and morality isn't.

 

[KarlMarx]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Funny how the democratic supporters were completely silent when John Kerry had the F bomb plastered all over his website and official blog.



What makes you so sure he was losing an argument? Maybe they disagreed and things just got heated. I curse all the time during arguments/debates, what kind of person does that make me? I think it makes me normal.

Frankly, I'm disappointed in the VP, he should have decked the Senator instead. Or at least told the Senator to do the "F" action to the Senator's mother (with a condom of course!).

Here is the party that endorses gay marriage, partial birth abortion, condoms for kids, defends sodomy in the Oval Office, taking “God” out of all aspects of American life and in general, assaulting traditional American values. All of the sudden, these Huns are acting like Cheney made his remarks to a bunch of nuns at Sunday Tea. The Democratic reaction is disingenuous and sanctimonious; two things that the Democrats seem to be best at.

P.S. I’m surprised at the Democratic reaction….after all, aren’t they in favor of teaching “safe sex” to school children? The remark shows Vice President Cheney’s concern for Senator Leahy’s well being. He obviously doesn’t want the Honorable Senator engaging in risky sexual behavior!

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

You can't debate religion or morality in a logical context. They are both subjective qualities based upon your social and cultural conditioning. There isn't some factual postulate that will prove you "right" or "wrong" when talking about abstract amorphous issues. The makeup of the supreme court can be debated in a factual and logical manner, depending on what vision of democracy would be most conducive to an effective, healthy society Jimmy. Get real. That's pretty simple. I guess I really grew up in a screwed up world. You know, one where logic, and not religious and moral dogma are debated and thought on. Religion and morality certainly have their place, but give me a break, you can't debate or discuss them in any factual or scientific sense. Don't bust my balls about it man.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
You can't debate religion or morality in a logical context. They are both subjective qualities based upon your social and cultural conditioning. There isn't some factual postulate that will prove you "right" or "wrong" when talking about abstract amorphous issues. The makeup of the supreme court can be debated in a factual and logical manner, depending on what vision of democracy would be most conducive to an effective, healthy society Jimmy. Get real. That's pretty simple. I guess I really grew up in a screwed up world. You know, one where logic, and not religious and moral dogma are debated and thought on. Religion and morality certainly have their place, but give me a break, you can't debate or discuss them in any factual or scientific sense. Don't bust my balls about it man.

I disagree religion and morality are debated logically everyday and have been for thousands of years. Simply because some people close their minds to it doesnt change that.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
It's not my attitude on that I think. On all of the threads I start, I try to project an encouraging, intellectually curious demeanor. It's just that most people in general are not interested in debating with facts and logic, but with subjective anecdotes and ridiculously garbled logic.

Or it could be they just don't want to converse with you.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
You can't debate religion or morality in a logical context. They are both subjective qualities based upon your social and cultural conditioning. There isn't some factual postulate that will prove you "right" or "wrong" when talking about abstract amorphous issues. The makeup of the supreme court can be debated in a factual and logical manner, depending on what vision of democracy would be most conducive to an effective, healthy society Jimmy. Get real. That's pretty simple. I guess I really grew up in a screwed up world. You know, one where logic, and not religious and moral dogma are debated and thought on. Religion and morality certainly have their place, but give me a break, you can't debate or discuss them in any factual or scientific sense. Don't bust my balls about it man.

I'm not busting your balls about it, I guess it just depends on what you consider debate. I think it's quit possible to debate interpretation of things involving religion. Morality and politics often run together, so I see that as debatable too.