bleeding heart

The fact that they spell out "heterosexual marriage" means it is about gay marriage too--as adultery, as some religious folk would determine it. And your interpretation indeed differs from mine--because I base mine on trivial matters like the words they use, while you base yours on....some phantom, not present in the words they use.

Uh...please point to any public statement by TWU officials that supports your interpretation of the extremely vague statement...since you made the claim before I did. And note that specific sexual acts are not mentioned....but the "sacred"ness of heterosexual marriage is plainly stated...and plainly implies the opposite for homosexual marriage. And like I said, they have every right to be silly little bigots...just as we have the right to call them on it.

I don't why Sarah Palin thinks that torturing "terrorists" (ie terrorist suspects) is less coddlesome than Obama's policy of killing them outright.

We know that Tim's preposterous "sodomy" argument is fallacious; even if we take it face value, we also know that "sodomy" is committed more often between heterosexual couples than by homosexual couples. (not percentage-wise, perhaps, but in real numbers) I hasten to add that I'm inclined to agree that Trinity has the right to make its rules according to its sniveling bigotry....I think the arguments made for this on this thread are very strong. But let's not pretend that Trinity's stance is not explicitly about the "sinfulness" of homosexuality....and has nothing specifically to do with sex acts...especially oral sex, which the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals not only perform, but believe is perfectly fine.

I said nothing about "equivalence." I pointed out that John Kerry's remark--which makes none of the distinctions you do, nor implies any--is beautifully symbolic of the lies and hypocrisy that we are dealt from our political elite. And yes, you've already been perfectly clear that the people who invade a country--despite grave and precise warnings which predictably came true--hold zero responsibility for any of the horrors they unleash while playing their grand geostrategic games. (Russia being the an apparent exception to your support for such actions.) I see no need to revisit it, as I see little point in debating the sort of educated Creationists who have no excuse not to know better.. I'll just add that I think Russia's behaviour is deplorable...because it is deplorable. Not out of some misguided servility to US-led geostrategy.

No worries. For what it's worth, I was implying a compliment on the care, detail and effort that is evidently in your post, if we're referring to the very lengthy one you posted (which I admit I barely skimmed...to my point that it was too long. And in case you see this as a criticism, let me amend it: too long for my taste.)

Yes, the idea that "the left is killing democracy in this country" isn't a promiscuous overstatement at all.

-1=e^ipi: I'm baffled by your brief response to my comment...did you misread it?

But Rue, I wasn't referring to a matter of "two wrongs making a right," or that Iraq isn't democratic. As was perfectly obvious to Dre, and, I assumed (perhaps mistakenly), everybody else , the hypocrisy of Western international policy is quite beautifully summed up in Kerry's remark...a remark that is obviously an outright lie. Because, as we all know, Kerry does in fact believe that it is acceptable to "invade[..] another country on completely trumped-up pretext" [sic]. Of course, I understand why the powerful people would indulge in the masturbatory and laughable self-righteousness...criminals don't tend towards honesty, for obvious reasons. I just don't quite get why educated members of the public are so eager to play sniveling sycophant, and pretend that Kerry et al are serious and sincere in such comments....even to the point of applauding their promiscuous hypocrisy and deceptions.

I do know the feeling when you have spent serious effort and care in constructing a detailed argument....and watch it spin off into the darkness. However, I should also add that very, very, very few posters are ever going to be interested in investing so much time in a post...with no idea of the quality of the payoff (whatever the evident seriousness and care in the construction of said post).

I thought you claimed to have personally diluted or damaged an online forum? Or am I misremembering your claim?

Oh, some folks here are forever going on about "the left," and it's tiresome to try to suss out any meaning or relevance to it.

Well, sure, the logic is tautologically perfect. Clearly, in the last Federal election, the "voters were finally paying attention." The election before that...they were somewhat paying attention, but not enough attention. Lately, they plainly haven't been "paying attention" (and there's that problem of "women thinking with their vaginas," a sober political analysis to be sure). But now, thanks to a possible "uptick," it would appear they're "paying attention" again. It's not a partisan argument: it's plain observation.

Actually, it's those who support unnecessary and outmoded "tough on crime" bills who are the nanny-state, "think of the children" bubble-wrappers. Just as a corrective to your assertion.

Good point, and I think it's pretty obvious that students respond well to such a teaching style. Surely all of us have memories of a favourite teacher or three....and that we remember actually learning something from them, and in a happy learning environment.

I disagree that we can divorce religious fanaticism from politics generally. I mean, move away from the Muslims for a moment: does anyone think the terrible violence being perpetrated by Christians in Africa--some of which has a distinctly religious flavor to it--is all about religion, and nothing about anything else? I don't believe it for a second.

Just so. It's sensible ideas gone awry through overkill.

And as for the propaganda emanating from powerful political figures in the West, notably the United States...what are we to make of the monumental elephants in the room when we hear the following?: "You just don't, in the 21st century, behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext." --John Kerry Oh, really, Mr. Kerry? And by "you don't," I take it you certainly don't mean "we don't." To my knowledge, this incredible remark passed entirely without comment by the "combative" and "left-leaning" media...though perhaps there was a dissident here or there committed to the heresy of pointing out contradictions, hypocrisies, and falsehoods like Kerry's (and Biden's; and Obama's) that were uttered so baldly, and with straight faces.

I'm inclined to agree. Catching an occasional whiff of tobacco smoke (and even that isn't terribly common) is harmless. That is not what was ever meant by "second-hand smoke," and I think maybe some people need to re-consider their priorities.

I still maintain that these polls are marginally telling at best. I remember well the similar debates revolving around the last election...and as far as I remember, very, very few of us got it right. (Probably no one got the NDP success correct). I'm not on a high horse here...I get the interest in the topic, and am even willing to play along. But at bottom, we're just conjecturing about the outcome of True Detective or Breaking Bad before the final episodes were in.

Probably why no one is disputing it...including those who believe they could be in serious danger in future, thanks to the alleged reason they are downgrading the threat at a speed which goes against the standard measures. Just to clarify, I'm not making the claim that it's definitely the wrong way to go. You're the one who is positive....based on faith in sincerity and openness of a government....one not particularly famous for openness, at that.

The "established normal reason" is in fact bland claims uttered by the government and its supporters...in the realm of actual knowledge on the subject, the idea as it is being floated is in fact hotly contested....you know this, but have decided that those agreeing with the government must be, by some magical default, "correct."

Well, maybe we'll someday see how the robocalls issue plays out, and maybe we won't. I was referring to the implied and baseless faux-outrage by Conservative supporters that voting fraud (presumably by such fringe groups as women, minorities, the poor, and "the left"....the majority of the population, in other words) is a rampant issue.

It certainly seems to be the case that lack of voting is a far bigger problem than voter fraud....if "widely agreed-upon issue" can be seen as bigger than "no evidence of any issue," which I think it can.