|
Lawdog on Separation of Church and State | by DesertRat66 | 2009-08-26 07:37:13 |
|
At some point... | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 08:18:11 |
|
THE DOCTERINE OF RELATIVE FILTH | by SnArL | 2009-08-26 08:46:04 |
|
Nobody SHOULD be doing it. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 09:16:50 |
|
[CITATION NEEDED] | by SnArL | 2009-08-26 09:20:55 |
|
Oh, how short the memory. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 11:10:20 |
|
How does Snarl saying something equate to | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 11:12:44 |
|
Snarl didn't say what he thought was conjecture. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 11:24:58 |
|
Your "picked something", to me at least, | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 11:27:48 |
| What am I supposed to be advancing? |
by kelli217 |
2009-08-26 11:45:30 |
I mean, I'm happy to chase the goalposts all over the field, but if you teleport them to behind my field of vision, I'm going to need a point in the general direction.
You know where I started with this, right? I didn't start out saying that anyone was playing dirty tricks -- I added that in later, because of Snarl's reference to the 'Docterine[sic] of Relative Filth'.
Here's a clarifiaction of my original post: If the Republicans wanted to get religion involved in their politics (and there are enough of them who appear to want that), and the Democrats complain about it to essentially deaf ears, then when the Democrats do it, the Republicans deserve to be met with deaf ears when they complain about it.
What argument do I have to support? I already said that it's pretty obvious that the rules of formal debate have already been thrown out the window. Why should I have to play by them if no one else will? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Just because one player is ignoring the rules | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 11:54:32 |
|
Maybe a man reference will clarify. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 12:05:42 |
|
No, I don't think I would reach that point. | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 12:11:59 |
|
My point is that if you want to debate and discuss | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 11:57:11 |
|
I don't want to debate and discuss. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 12:12:07 |
|
What good would that do? | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 12:13:14 |
|
One word... | by DesertRat66 | 2009-08-26 12:20:57 |
|
And yet when somebody brings up the death penalty | by SnArL | 2009-08-26 12:22:48 |
|
Exactly. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 12:31:27 |
|
Who is "the right"? | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 12:35:11 |
|
Them. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 12:46:54 |
|
"Them" isn't very definitive. (n/t) | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 12:51:47 |
|
Of course not. | by SnArL | 2009-08-26 12:55:16 |
|
See, I knew you'd get it. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 13:10:31 |
|
You're correct in that. | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 13:14:56 |
|
Let me make sure I understand this, k? | by SnArL | 2009-08-26 13:42:27 |
|
I agree on the logic but, your snark volume lately | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 13:46:03 |
|
So I'm now responsible for how others react? | by SnArL | 2009-08-26 14:11:15 |
|
No, but you are responsible for how you react | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 14:29:29 |
|
And when the other side consistently fails to make | by SnArL | 2009-08-26 14:46:38 |
|
Just a small observation | by DesertRat66 | 2009-08-26 14:54:29 |
|
Very wise man in that your Pappy (n/t) | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 15:02:16 |
|
I would like to draw your attention to something. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 14:54:36 |
|
Then call them on it and don't pretty much | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 14:59:36 |
|
So let me make sure I am understanding | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 13:37:53 |
|
More or less. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 14:01:56 |
|
Stated that way you are making much more sense | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 14:20:09 |
|
I'm tired of... | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 14:37:11 |
|
Honestly, if you had said it that way | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 14:45:30 |
|
And a lot of people wouldn't have gotten it. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 14:51:18 |
|
I *strongly* disagree. I think you hurt your | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 15:01:18 |
|
Actually, you're agreeing with me. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 15:09:26 |
|
No, I think that if that was your end goal | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 15:18:16 |
|
It was not to cause a fight. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 15:33:10 |
|
I think there are probably | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 16:30:10 |
|
True, but with the object lesson | by Nightwind | 2009-08-26 19:21:45 |
|
I think most people already knew it. (n/t) | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 19:43:17 |
|
Good. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 13:05:08 |
|
There have been, as I believe I remember, | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 13:13:21 |
|
Not improper at all. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 13:43:09 |
|
O, I C WUT U DID THAR | by SnArL | 2009-08-26 14:09:37 |
|
Single-Largest Ideological Group Is: | by DesertRat66 | 2009-08-26 13:13:55 |
|
Self-identified, label-based. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 13:40:28 |
|
Whatever helps you sleep at night | by DesertRat66 | 2009-08-26 13:48:31 |
|
Application denied | by DesertRat66 | 2009-08-26 12:36:24 |
|
You're right, I have no reputation for being... | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 12:46:19 |
|
<Deleted> | <Deleted> | 2009-08-26 12:50:57 |
|
Modded, double post. (n/t) | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 12:51:09 |
|
I never quite got the idea of revenge. | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 12:23:02 |
|
It's like an unstable explosive | by DesertRat66 | 2009-08-26 12:39:16 |
|
Is this something that you are looking for? | by SaylorA | 2009-08-26 12:29:35 |
|
Yep! Good! | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 12:40:30 |
