quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirDiscipliner69

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Apparently recognizing that Ex-VP Gore also represents a "special interest". 

Yes I believe it is Earth and its inhabitants

Ross
©º°¨¨°º©

Did you mean to put this in the 'humor' section?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

apparently you do, since you solicit it from all others --- it would be the high road, would it not?

Mr. INHOFE. Maybe this isn't worded exactly right. But this is the only show in town. It is the only opportunity that we will have to do anything. Again, I said maybe I am the wrong person to talk about this. I was talking to my brother, Buddy Inhofe, down in Texas. He is a Texas citizen, I say to my friend from Texas over here. He and his wife Margaret--he is 1 year older than I am--they have been married for 53 years. Every time they have a wedding anniversary, it is just like getting married again.
  As you see--maybe this is the most important prop we will have during the entire debate--my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I am really proud to say in the recorded history of our family, we have never had a divorce or any kind of a homosexual relationship. I think maybe I am the wrong one to be doing this, as I come with such a strong prejudice for strong families.
  When we got married 47 years ago, there were a couple of things that were said. In Genesis 2:24 it is said:

  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

  Matthew 19 says:

  Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. .....

  I can assure you that these 20 kids and grandkids are very proud and very thankful that today, 47 years later, Kay and I believed in Matthew 19:4, that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.
  Thank you for the additional time.

quote:

What planet is Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, who calls global warming the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on Americans on?

Doesn't he see what is happening all around him?

As Al Gore stated the only other statement that is as strong is that of the theroy of gravity.

Everyone one knows that "Friends Don't Let Friends Torture Republicans"

Ross
©º°¨¨°º©

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirDiscipliner69

What planet is Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, who calls global warming the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on Americans on?

Doesn't he see what is happening all around him?

As Al Gore stated the only other statement that is as strong is that of the theroy of gravity.

Everyone one knows that "Friends Don't Let Friends Torture Republicans"

Ross
©º°¨¨°º©

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirDiscipliner69

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Merc, I watched part of Reverand Al's "testimony" before that commission.
After watching him I wanted to take a shower!

How much of the 4 hour testimony did you consider a "part" to watch?

Did you see it on CSPAN or was it merely a soundbite with local commentary?

Ross
©º°¨¨°º©

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

apparently you do, since you solicit it from all others --- it would be the high road, would it not?

Just for you Ron, just for you ... this one time.

  1.  While it is true that the terms "shadow" and "stalker" can be applied to both sexes, in reality, in our society, the pejorative terms is more often applied to men stalking women, than to women stalking men.
Shadow and Stalker are two wholly different things in my mind.


In common consciousness, we picture a big, burly, crazed man stalking of a petitie, defenseless woman.  Many more women are abused - even killed - by men who can't take not having the attention of a particular woman, than are men who may be inconvenienced by women stalking men.
Stet


By her referring to me as her "shadow" (polite term for a stalker)
this is really a straw man argument, and while it may  hold some commerce with me, this is going into puella's mind and attributing  motivations she may not actually have.  
 
and then by hardening it to "her stalker",  
she is trying to evince the negative emotions about me and in me.
if one is overwhelmingly pontificating a contrary and closely held view, one must expect exaspiration time to time.  And it is certainly possible that she has negative emotions about you.
 
This is effective for a woman, generally, but not for a man. 
Yeah, I agree a cake and eat it scenario, it's why it was coined hysteronics.


Most people have little sympathy for a man who is "being pursued" by a woman.
Well goddammit, I would be satisfied were I to be such a bad man, then.


Hence ... she is attempting to use her feminity against me, by trying to get me to shut up or stop taking her political posts head on, and in others, to gain sympathy to her point of view, unrelated to the merits of her arguments.
I can see that you find these valid reasons to belive but I do not find them so.

  2.  "Doll" is one of the many terms used by men for women where they are showing a sense of familiarity.  Other terms are "babe", "honey", "girl" etc.
Perhaps this is so, but I believe she called you doll as well, which would indicate the contrapositive is also true. So, let it be agreed that the whale is one of the largest animals alive today, and we find this not even trivially astounding.

If there is indeed a familiarity, and a sense of friendship and affection, such terms are terms of endearment.  If there is no such sense of friendship and affection, then the use of the terms by a man about a woman are imposing on her boundaries, and seen as condescending and insulting.

She is well aware of the cultural stricture against a man using such terms when no such amity or friendship exists, and in using them on me, is poking my nose in the fact that she can do it, and I can't. 
This is your feeling, but this opinion is hardly supportable, and your nose looks none the worse than it usually does.  I can provide a handkerchief for you if necessary.

So, once again, she is attempting to use her feminity against me, by slightly insulting me and placing me in the position where I can't respond in kind.
And you do not resort to any device yourself? Come now, I blush at such effrontery.

Hoping, I believe, that I will get angry, and allow her to make the unfounded claim that I am indeed the "big, burly, crazed man" she wishes me to be, in order to discount my criticisms of your arguments.  Thereby gaining sympathy for her point of view, unrelated to the merits of her arguments.

Is that clear enough?
I understood the first time and even prior to that, however; there is no rules of debate or rules of order that require anyone to stay on topic, to discourse by any means you find flattering, or to even possess any Abelian logic.   
FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: puella

You know, you could look it up if you really were interested in finding that it was true... just because you do not like the site that the link had the quote posted doesn't mean it is any less legitmate and I only chose that one because it had a video link (sorry I could not test it on the work computer)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Inhofe

here is one from wiki which you are so fond of

quote:

ORIGINAL: puella

but here is the official Congressional record for ya:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:5:./temp/~r109ZBW5Y7:e48059:

quote:

ORIGINAL: puella

Mr. INHOFE. Maybe this isn't worded exactly right. But this is the only show in town. It is the only opportunity that we will have to do anything. Again, I said maybe I am the wrong person to talk about this. I was talking to my brother, Buddy Inhofe, down in Texas. He is a Texas citizen, I say to my friend from Texas over here. He and his wife Margaret--he is 1 year older than I am--they have been married for 53 years. Every time they have a wedding anniversary, it is just like getting married again.

As you see--maybe this is the most important prop we will have during the entire debate--my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I am really proud to say in the recorded history of our family, we have never had a divorce or any kind of a homosexual relationship. I think maybe I am the wrong one to be doing this, as I come with such a strong prejudice for strong families.

When we got married 47 years ago, there were a couple of things that were said. In Genesis 2:24 it is said:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Matthew 19 says:

Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. .....

 I can assure you that these 20 kids and grandkids are very proud and very thankful that today, 47 years later, Kay and I believed in Matthew 19:4, that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Thank you for the additional time.

   Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents.

   That is in Denmark.

   Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more.

   Stop and think. What is going to be the result? The result is going to be very expensive. Many of these kids are going to end up on welfare, so it goes far beyond just the current emotions. I think my colleague, Senator Sessions, I believe it was yesterday, said:

   If there are not families to raise children, who will raise them? Who will take the responsibility? It will fall on the State. Clearly it will become a State responsibility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: puella

No, because the vast vast vast majority of peer reviewed scientific research supports that fact (notice I said peer review... that is VERY important).

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

LOL,

I knew that answer, I use rhetorical devices as well (and I can google when moved to do so), now---to the point---

Show a significant causality in children being born out of wedlock between faggots that marry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: puella

I also think that his quoting the bible passages whas a bit much on the floor of the Senate... separation of church and state and all that silliness...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain


Who's Fueling Inhofe?
by Rp
Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:16:49 AM PDT

Why does James Inhofe (R-OK) take such a strong position against the science of global warming? Why does he seem to go out of his way to create doubt about this particular issue, and no other? Why does he dismiss the large consensus and data that shows a crisis is at hand?
As always it’s instructive to follow the money. So I headed over to opensecrets.org and here's what I found...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/22/101649/751

quote:

Welcome to Walden Pond, Fifth Avenue style. Isabella’s parents, Colin Beavan, 43, a writer of historical nonfiction, and Michelle Conlin, 39, a senior writer at Business Week, are four months into a yearlong lifestyle experiment they call No Impact. Its rules are evolving, as Mr. Beavan will tell you, but to date include eating only food (organically) grown within a 250-mile radius of Manhattan; (mostly) no shopping for anything except said food; producing no trash (except compost, see above); using no paper; and, most intriguingly, using no carbon-fueled transportation. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/garden/22impact.html?ex=1332216000&en=e77725051fe1a853&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

quote:

Also, he needed a new book project and the No Impact year was the only one of four possibilities his agent thought would sell.