So Bachmann is the only republican woman? -----Original Message----- From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 8:47 AM To: cf-community Subject: Re: I know I have slammed others for saying similar things....
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:36 PM, PT <cft...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am pretty reasonable, or I like to think so .. hope so. I wasn't > speaking about this particular conversation, more commenting on a > pattern I have noticed over the years. So you seem to miss a lot. I'm very consistent about frivolousness attracts. My position is to ask folks to back up their slander which usually turns to deflection, tangents and name calling. So many years of Bush lied people died, Bush stole the election, War for Oil, Defend daddy yada yada yada.. Now it's all women Republicans are stupid fundies forcing Americans to convert. But thanks for the lurker eval. Here's what I think: What a great post. I spend hours on the net reading comments, about tons of various subjects. I have to first of all give praise to whoever created your theme and second of all to you for writing what i can only describe as an fabulous comment. I honestly believe there is a skill to writing articles that only very few posses and honestly you got it. The combining of demonstrative and upper-class content is by all odds super rare with the astronomic amount of comments on the cyberspace. I have bookmarked, Dugg, and I joined the RSS subscription. Thanks! . > > Thanks for the summary, though. > >> So he's hating on all female Republicans because they're >> fundamentalists which in his view means they actually have faith. > > See, this is what I am talking about. That's a bit of a leap in logic. > I don't recall him saying any such thing. Weird because that's what he said about Palin and Bachmann. Maybe I took liberties when I said ALL. > If >> they went to church but thought most of what was said was BS he might >> vote for them. Now it's clear from the start he was against Bachmann >> because she's a Republican and therefore must be a fundamentalist. > > Nnnnnno this isn't clear at all. Again, you have some interesting > ways of connecting A to B. It is clear, you just need to pay attention. A> We're back to she's religious, to be accepted one must be only a A > little religious. B> We're actually back to "she's a fundy nutcase". But you know, now B> that you put it that way, I kind of like that. Religion, like all B> things, is better when taken in moderation. very interesting ways indeed I guess he was joking or I forced him to think that way? >> When question he looked it up and came back with a big aha because he >> suprised himself. >> >> So the straw man really is claiming she's a fundy while she isn't. So >> he than had to cover is error by changing his defininition of a fundy >> to mean anyone that isn't a moderate. Fair enough. >> >> Now to claim that since she believes in a higher being she's too >> stupid to run the country is what I was trying to draw out and it >> came too easy. > > Actually, I believe what he was saying is that her fundamentalist > leaning beliefs, which he finds utterly absurd in themselves, make her > a poor choice for leader of a nation. Now, spin that however you want it. Ah now it's "leaning" ...Well she's not a fundy as he claimed, it turns out that being more than moderately religious is fundy enough for him. My spin is the same, if you don't like or trust religious people come right out and say it. Don't tar and feather her as an extremist to cover your bigotry. >> So I'm thinking you weren't paying attention if you think I was using >> the straw man. Everything I claimed from the begining came to be true >> bigotry he was trying to disguise as intelligence. > > Well, I wouldn't want to be accused of bigotry either, so let me make > my stance clear from the start. I can not fathom people beleiving in > a literal interpretation of the Bible. I just don't see how anyone could. She never said she does. See that's the tar and feather part. He should thank you for putting your toe to the line. > She has chosen to base at least part of her life around a book of > stories that is supposed to be the word of God, but was written by man > and then edited by committee to remove the parts they didn't like. > So, I am allowed to question her decision making abilities. It has > nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats or the faithful or women. Let it be clear that you question the credibility of people of faith. How do we look from up there? > I > don't agree with some of her beliefs and opinions and desired >policies, so I would choose not to vote for her. This is not at all unreasonable. Well shit now that is a damn good reason not to vote for her! But if you said you won't vote for her because of her beliefs alone I would call you a bigot. > I believe that is the gist of the original argument too, before all of > the spinning and logic-leaping happened. You just did a hell of a job spinning his argument. >> It's basic drill down, he says something offensive and I keep asking >> qestions until he realizes his bias. Everyone does it to me all the >> time, only with less satisfying results. > > Because you usually don't answer the questions, opting instead for > those glib one-liners ;) Actually I do which is what bothers many. Occasionally I know when to let dead horses lie but not often enough. It seems you really don't pay attention, must be half lurk mode y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:340111 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
