| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/27/2008 06:58:31 AM · #376 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It wasn't an attack, merely an observation.......and some of where you go with your views on women are absolutely, unequivocally arcane.
|
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I think the term you're looking for is "archaic". Not that the use of "arcane" here isn't amusing. |
arcane-Show Spelled Pronunciation [ahr-keyn]
–adjective known or understood by very few; mysterious; secret; obscure; esoteric: She knew a lot about Sanskrit grammar and other arcane matters.
Personally, I *DO* feel that the type of opinions the man has expressed about women ARE mysterious, obscure, esoteric........and I hope they become more so as the male of the species continues to pull his head out of......the sand and realize what an amazing, resourceful, intelligent, and powerful individual a woman is. |
I again feel insulted... I don't believe that I have ever stated that women are unamazing, unresourceful, unintelligent, and powerless individuals. This is slander (libel from a legal perspective as it is written) Mr. Jeb. I'll expect an apology.
edit to add legal definition
Message edited by author 2008-10-27 07:18:08. |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 07:08:41 AM · #377 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
How did we get from Election '08 to listening to the arcane ravings of this guy? |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Boy Mr. Jeb your the last person I would expect to attack me. Here I thought we were on good terms overall.. now I'm just 'this guy' with my 'arcane ravings'. I feel rather insulted.
edit to add: we got here from a starting point of your attack on Mrs. Palin. |
Dude, you've really been kinda off the deep end in the last few posts going back and forth between your beliefs, and then taking shots in a manner that sound like you're making fun of them, i.e. your "Devil made me do it" comment.
And then you say that's cutting edge humor.
It wasn't an attack, merely an observation.......and some of where you go with your views on women are absolutely, unequivocally arcane.
Strictly my opinion, but.....
And if stating some glaringly obvious facts on Palin is an attack, well yeah.....guilty as charged.
But I want nothing to do with her values whatsoever.......if my kid's school hired her tomorrow to teach ethics and values to my kid, I'd yank my kid out of that school so fast it isn't even funny.
We just aren't going to agree here, methinks. |
I'm not making fun of my beliefs. 'The devil made me do it' wasn't the cutting edge humor. That was more of a 'i know you don't believe in such things so I'll blame it on that' type of smart ass remark. You really have a hard time with the nuances of these conversations.
On the other topic you bring up... do you feel that Palin is unethical? Is that because of Troopergate? just wondering. |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 08:41:26 AM · #378 |
By the way of thinking that goes on here if your child fibs to get out of trouble then you didn't teach them that lying was wrong. If your child thieves then you must've never taught them about stealing.
The hypocrisy of this place never ceases to amaze me.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2008 08:42:50 AM · #379 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I again feel insulted... I don't believe that I have ever stated that women are unamazing, unresourceful, unintelligent, and powerless individuals. This is slander (libel from a legal perspective as it is written) Mr. Jeb. I'll expect an apology.
edit to add legal definition |
Okay.....if that's the way you want to respond to an opinion you don't like, fine.
Go ahead and try and sue me, when you start spouting theoretical legal activity over an impression that you made on me, we're done.
I will certainly not apologize for telling you I think your views on women are way off.
The women that are friends of mine would find most of your views at least ridiculous,
and more likely condescending and clueless.
BTW, from a legal standpoint, you cannot sue someone for stating an opinion......well, I take that back, you can sue someone for just about anything, whether or not you'll win is another thing entirely.
Good luck with your attitudes. |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 08:54:08 AM · #380 |
Originally posted by Phil:
By the way of thinking that goes on here if your child fibs to get out of trouble then you didn't teach them that lying was wrong. If your child thieves then you must've never taught them about stealing.
The hypocrisy of this place never ceases to amaze me. |
I think both sides are talking about two different things. My take on it is this, if you teach your child abstinence only and they have sex, most likely you will end up with an unintended pregnancy. If you teach your child sex education, stressing pregnancy and std prevention, they might still have sex but the odds of an unintended pregnancy or a life threatening disease are far less. The bottom line is the abstinence only programs don't work. And Palin is an advocate for this with proof in her own household that it doesn't work. |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 09:03:22 AM · #381 |
I'll attempt to get this back on track and try to keep cult-like religions out of it.
News from today from the two parties:
Issue of race grows with Obama in the lead
Commentary: Joe the Plumber vs. Colin Powell McCain used the Joe the Plumber line 21 times during his last debate. I hope it comes back and bites him in the ass knowing what we now know about Joe the Racist Plumber.
McCain Urged Reagan Admin To Meet Terror Groups Without Pre-Conditions Shows how much of a hypocrite McCain really is.
Alaska's largest newspaper endorses Obama
Now for that other party.
I just can't seem to find any dirty news about the Democrats or Obama? I challenge any one to find some so I can post them in this post. I'm seriously confounded that I just can't find anything negative about Obama or his party.
Here's what I found, not much compared to what I can find about the repubs.
'Beware Total Democrat Takeover'
GOP: Obama would be 'a weak president'
Message edited by author 2008-10-27 09:04:56. |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 09:12:05 AM · #382 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
It's caused by our society at large setting an extremely bad example of what adulthood means: promiscuous pre-marital sex, violence is glorified. |
This just sounds like this year's Republican ticket. Underage, un-wed pregnant children, war heroes and moose hunters. |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 10:31:57 AM · #383 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
It's caused by our society at large setting an extremely bad example of what adulthood means: promiscuous pre-marital sex, violence is glorified. |
Promiscuous pre marital sex; when are you going to let go of that one? You can't dictate to teenagers that nature's calling is dirty and un-natural, you accomplish the opposite of what you're trying to teach with that line of thought and you risk losing your child's respect because they'll probably learn from somewhere else that their natural tendencies are completely normal and accepted by almost everyone the world over except those who let old demystified religions grab a hold of how they live their lives. All you're doing is setting yourselves up for disappointment by ignoring nature and the reason for you being alive today. (not saying your parents had you out of wedlock, just stipulating the fact that sexual attraction is normal)
violence is glorified...hmm
Massacres of Indian Independence (1947, Hindu vs. Muslim)
Thirty Years War (Christians, Catholics vs. Protestants, Germany, 1618 to 1648)
Russian Pogroms (Christians killing Jews, Medieval times to 20th century)
Sudanese Civil War (1983 to present, Muslims vs. Christians and Animist rebels)
St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre (1572: Lyon, France: Catholics killing Protestants)
Ivory Coast (present day, Christians vs. Muslims)
East Timor (1970s to present day, Muslims mainly killing Christians)
Here's a link that lists many present day conflicts that are based on religious views. See if you can spot the ones without violence involved. Find me a list of non-violent religious conflicts please.
eta! I derailed what I tried to redirect earlier. Damn %^$(&%$*#&$ religion! grrr Rid me of it and cleanse my mind of this filth for good someone please???
Message edited by author 2008-10-27 10:33:57. |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 11:37:13 AM · #384 |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 11:37:54 AM · #385 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
It's caused by our society at large setting an extremely bad example of what adulthood means: promiscuous pre-marital sex, violence is glorified. |
Just a question I've been itching to ask - what exactly is pre-marital sex?
My husband is a Roman Catholic so, according to the church, he is married but to someone else.
I am panenthiest and have no church of my own so I'm not married in any church's eyes.
We were married by a pentecostal preacher we found on-line but we didn't get married in a church and have never been in a pentecostal church so I'm not sure we're married in their eyes either.
We have a license from the state but I don't think they really care if we are having sex or not, nor who we are having it with unless we are having it with girls under 16 or boys under 18.
And, is all premarital sex promiscuous? What if you are only have it with one person over and over, even if you do it every day?
And Jac - I agree with you on the glorified violence front and in fact posited such about 3 months ago, where everyone promptly told me I was wrong, that religion wasn't the reason for a lot of violence in the world (I also included Empirism/Empire building, which I find to be a nationalistic version of the same thing).
|
|
|
|
10/27/2008 11:43:29 AM · #386 |
Oh boy. I thought we wouldn't be seeing this woman for a long time after Nov. 4th but it looks like she's getting ready to run for President in 2012. ROFL
'Rogue' Palin eyeing 2012 White House campaign, insiders say
|
|
|
|
10/27/2008 11:53:16 AM · #387 |
I like this quote from that.
Islam wasn't even around when Revelations was written. LOL
Worrying video though. It frightens me that some people are willing to go on camera and actually say the man is the devil. I'm ashamed to be part of the same species as this man. |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 12:00:58 PM · #388 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Phil:
By the way of thinking that goes on here if your child fibs to get out of trouble then you didn't teach them that lying was wrong. If your child thieves then you must've never taught them about stealing.
The hypocrisy of this place never ceases to amaze me. |
I think both sides are talking about two different things. My take on it is this, if you teach your child abstinence only and they have sex, most likely you will end up with an unintended pregnancy. If you teach your child sex education, stressing pregnancy and std prevention, they might still have sex but the odds of an unintended pregnancy or a life threatening disease are far less. The bottom line is the abstinence only programs don't work. And Palin is an advocate for this with proof in her own household that it doesn't work. |
Wow. Then I guess there's proof in my household that sex education, stressing pregnancy etc doesn't work. I knew about all that and we had an unplanned baby 7 weeks ago. So I guess since I didn't apply what I've been taught we can totally discount the validity of sex education? |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 12:31:20 PM · #389 |
Originally posted by Phil:
So I guess since I didn't apply what I've been taught we can totally discount the validity of sex education? |
Actually NO... I seem to recall something about the "odds" being better in a scenario where sex education was included, as opposed to the "abstinence" alone process.
Ray
PS: Congrats on the happy event :O) |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 12:53:00 PM · #390 |
Speaking of anti-Barack distortions, I was dismayed while visiting my mother in Illinois this week to find the local newspapers print Letters-to-the-Editor that are no better than the lunatic ravings found in internet forums. One featured letter said Democrats are "baby butcherers."
Driving around town, I took pleasure in noting the many McCain-Palin yard signs mixed in with elaborately scary Halloweeen decorations -- an unintentional irony, to be sure. |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 12:56:22 PM · #391 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Driving around town, I took pleasure in noting the many McCain-Palin yard signs mixed in with elaborately scary Halloweeen decorations -- an unintentional irony, to be sure. |
ROFLMAO!!!! |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 01:00:19 PM · #392 |
This is more insidious than people realize. It's this kind of unreasoning nonsense that's undermining American culture, and, in the worst case, will cause it to implode. |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 01:05:00 PM · #393 |
| this is along the baby butcher line. why does one person have a problem with whether or not someone else has an abortion? its not infringing on their life or rights in any way. I have never been able to figure this out |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 01:15:07 PM · #394 |
Originally posted by Louis:
This is more insidious than people realize. It's this kind of unreasoning nonsense that's undermining American culture, and, in the worst case, will cause it to implode. |
I find it supremely ironic that this attitude is so often co-mingled with the need to fight terrorism, when it is, in effect, the very source of the problem–
"The Bush administration deliberately conflated the Al Qaeda threat with the problem posed by Saddam's Iraq. Then [they] deepened the confusion with the claim that Al Qaeda hated the United States because of our freedoms and our way of life. As [Osama] bin Ladin has said, if that were the case, Al Qaeda would have attacked Sweden. So what is it that motivates AQ and the terrorists that belong to it? A sense that the Islamic world has been under systematic attack by the West for the last century... We have pursued Al Qaeda by military means—with considerable success. But our war of choice in Iraq has mobilized, I suspect, the next two generations of recruits to Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, we haven't tackled the fundamental challenge, which I call attacking Al Qaeda's narrative—its reading of history. Al Qaeda's anti-Western message gains traction from the belief, widespread among Muslims, that the U.S. doesn't respect the Muslim world." |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 02:41:02 PM · #395 |
Originally posted by Phil:
So I guess since I didn't apply what I've been taught we can totally discount the validity of sex education? |
Uhh ... no. You can't. Not reasonably, at least. See below:
Originally posted by Phil:
(...) I didn't apply what I've been taught (...) |
Oh ... and congratulations, too. |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 03:34:58 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Phil:
So I guess since I didn't apply what I've been taught we can totally discount the validity of sex education? |
Uhh ... no. You can't. Not reasonably, at least. See below:
Originally posted by Phil:
(...) I didn't apply what I've been taught (...) |
Oh ... and congratulations, too. |
Uhhhh, okay - what? The comparison is to those who didn't apply what they've been taught (abstinence) so absinence education is often discounted. Now that I am proof that prevention is also often unapplied then which should we determine is the best?
That being said, I was not discussing pro sex ed vs abstinence. I was only discussing the hypocrisy of stating that because a person's child became pregnant that must mean that the parent's methods don't work. It's silly.
Message edited by author 2008-10-27 18:38:55. |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 03:35:18 PM · #397 |
| And thanks for the congrats! |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 03:58:03 PM · #398 |
I expect any Obama supporters who have children will be establishing a learning lesson this Friday by demonstrating the principles of taking from those that have and giving to those who don't - by insisting that their children accept the confiscation of a portion of their earnings (candy) and the redistribution of said earnings to those who didn't expend the effort of going door to door.
edit to add; I hope it will be done on a fair and patriotic basis whereby those with the most candy will have the greatest amount confiscated and redistributed. That ought to teach them to work harder and go to even more houses next year.
Message edited by author 2008-10-27 16:13:19. |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 04:16:31 PM · #399 |
I seem to remember the discussion of felons voting being brought up and I found this article interesting: Senator Stevens Found Guilty.
Originally posted by article:
Despite being a convicted felon, he is not required to drop out of the race or resign from the Senate. If he wins re-election, he can continue to hold his seat because there is no rule barring felons from serving in Congress. The Senate could vote to expel Stevens on a two-thirds vote. |
If felons can serve in Congress, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote?
Oh, and  Flash, in our house we are going to adopt the Bush/McCain Halloween strategy -- we're going to buy out all of the candy from the local stores, and then when kids show up, we'll turn off all of the lights and pretend we're not at home.
Message edited by author 2008-10-27 16:17:08. |
|
|
|
10/27/2008 04:23:25 PM · #400 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
If felons can serve in Congress, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote?
|
Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:
* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year...
Can you guess which organization this is?
It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.
The same group that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 11:56:58 AM EDT.
