Comments Posted By brooks
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 39 Comments
ARE CONSERVATIVES ANGRIER THAN LIBERALS?
Scrapiron:
You're not obligated to cut down on the crazy in your breakfast just for our sakes, but it would be awful charitable of you to have a few more sentences without cliches or catchwords in your commentary (you were 1:8 in that last post).
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Other, it always pays to put things in your own words; otherwise, they're simply meaningless, and we're all just yelling "Booo!" and Yay!" at each other. And that's not terribly conducive to conversation, is it?.
Comment Posted By brooks On 10.10.2008 @ 20:23
If we lose our liberties, it will be Obama who takes them away – not Republicans.
I don't know... maybe free speech: Europe and Canada are surely doing a number on folks who don't publicly tow the p.c. line.
But it's been the GOP responsible for locking up people without habeus protections and sticking them with electrodes and whatnot.
Some are terrorists, sure; but others were simply taken off the street in Eastern Europe, or yanked out of their straw hut when an informant had a grudge to press. And Jose Padilla, though not exactly an example of sterling character, is a US citizen. So there's definitely a precedent for the rest of us to worry about.
So, sure, Rick; villainize the Democrats - they certainly have plenty of faults. But don't pretend that, of the two major parties, they're the only threat to our constitutionally protected freedoms. At this point in time, I'm not terribly impressed by either one.
Comment Posted By brooks On 10.10.2008 @ 16:04
CinnamongirlUF:
Ooh, yeah, imagine me, the sneering 'elitist', wanting actual reasons. :p
"Name calling"? I didn't call you any names. Simply asked you to back up your part of our discussion -- which took long enough, btw. Isn't that what blogs are for? Discussion? Exchange of information? Call me confused.
Obviously the barely concealed vitriol beneath many of the posts here don't matter a whit to you, but they certainly smacked of hostility to me. I don't see it as a stretch to use the term "nutjob" for that kind of unreason.
Anyway, Kenny: Thank you for showing some integrity and doing a little research, and giving me the only thing I was asking of anyone here, after all: evidence. It says something that no one else even bothered.
Comment Posted By brooks On 16.09.2008 @ 14:39
CinnamongirlUF:
Hey, congratulations on thinking of that (not quite) all by yourself! Don't wear yourself out.
I'm just challenging nutjobs to back up their claims. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for factual support for falsifiable claims. Hope that doesn't offend anyone's delicate sensibilities.
Comment Posted By brooks On 16.09.2008 @ 10:21
HEY KENNY:
I've been trying to wrangle some actual evidence of the supposed evils of homosexuality from folks commenting here, but with no luck.
Do you have actual facts to back up your "well documented" claims? Or are you just foaming at the mouth like the rest?
Comment Posted By brooks On 16.09.2008 @ 04:44
CinnamongirlUF:
That's all I was wondering. :) There are things no one should be doing in the middle of the street in broad daylight, straight or otherwise; but I figure that's what public decency laws are for.
Comment Posted By brooks On 15.09.2008 @ 17:16
So then, nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, then?
Comment Posted By brooks On 15.09.2008 @ 13:47
CinnamongirlUF:
So, still not sure what you're trying to say.
I'm talking specifically here about the behavior of two consenting adults, in the privacy of their home. Not any of the freakshows you might see in parades or whatnot (and yes, I've lived in San Fran).
Tell me, PLEASE, because I haven't heard anything approaching an answer: Given the qualifiers I've described above, what is wrong with homosexual behavior?
Jeez.
Comment Posted By brooks On 15.09.2008 @ 12:07
CinnamongirlUF:
Granted. I get that. But -- if homosexual behaviors are wrong, then why? That is what I'm asking.
Comment Posted By brooks On 15.09.2008 @ 09:53
CinnamongirlUF:
I don't know what you're talking about. I wasn't trying to make any kind of normative argument for any kind of behavior. But it's kind of bizarre that you compare my argument to animals eating their young.
All I was attempting to say is that no one here has given any real evidence how homosexuality is somehow immoral or wrong, though there are several commenters who hint around it or otherwise imply it. If this is in fact what's being implied, I'd just like to see someone present some facts backing it up.
Comment Posted By brooks On 14.09.2008 @ 23:18
