My first comment is in response to RJ's. RJ wrote on the other thread:
How many times can i say it? I don't care what your "project" is.
Obviously, you're eager to devolve my specific points into your larger
argument about homosexual marriage...but I have no interest in doing
so. I addressed something specific said by fitz and my interest begins and ends there.
No matter how often you deny it, fitz misrepresented what Mrbill said, and I showed just how he did so.
Are you REALLY naive enough to claim there has been no "aggressive and
unrelenting attack machine operated by dishonest gay activists?"
Regarding my reference to the BSA and the courts, you AGAIN try to bring in your larger "project".
Yes, I derisively dismissed your shallow understanding of what has
been going on in the "war" against the BSA and why. The ACLU, the
activist gay community, and a wide range of leftists are actively and
aggressively committed to their destruction. No offense intended, but
your characterization of BSA supporters who fear "mincing" Scoutmasters
shows how appallingly ignorant you are on the subject.
END OF RJ'S POST
Here's my reply, to kick off this forum:
What specific points? You made a claim about some homosexual attack
machine and I asked for evidence of that along with some perfectly
legitimate follow-up questions.
I don't know about Fitz, but I've given you my interpretation of misterbill's comments.
That
is my assessment of the BSA incidents and I will not apologize for it.
Since you apparently have a far superior understanding of it, why don't
you put your chips on the table and explain what it is. Sorry, but
saying "The ACLU, the activist gay community, and a wide range of of
leftists
are actively and aggressively committed to their destruction" is vague
fearmongering. I'm sure you have details to share. And I've seen you,
in other threads on this topic, make reference to the frightening
possibility of a gay scoutleader taking boys on trips and so forth, so
don't tell me that's not an element of it. My only point is that while
that's an understandable fear, it doesn't make scoutleaders any more to
have pedophilic tendencies or to act on them.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Sorry - I just posted something in the off topic discussion before I got your PM. There are so many issues here and we probably need both.
While I do agree with Mr. Bill and RJ that there is an organized Gay attack machine and a Gay agenda, it's irrelevant to my positions on Gay marriage, Gay adoption, and Civil Unions.
Dee, let's use yours. You've already written a nice long intro. I'll cut and paste my above comment/exchange with RJ and put it in yours and we'll call my forum kaput, OK?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Dee, sounds good. My wife just got home, so I am not going to spend the rest of the evening in front of a computer either. Time to start dinner. Let's hope that with this fresh start, we'll each be able to better understand where the other is coming from.
Cheers,
JC
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
the big road-block for me is the progressive hypocracy - when the pro-gay crowd gets consistent and also backs the peds/et al they may have enough credibility to effectively assert alternate-lifestyle nuptuals such as gay marriage
We're not supporting pedophilia. Get that little idee fixe out of your head, please.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I don't think he means it the way you think, but I still think it's an inappropriate comparison. My point with you before is that you wouldn't address what I was saying on the issue, only what others have said.
Dee, I'm not clear on what it is you contend I "wouldn't address" from what you said on the issue. I'd be more than happy to address and discuss those concerns here if you'd just clue me in. Thanks.
and clarify - like Jason. I intended on making my specific points again in individual posts so it wouldn't be confusing, but as always the thread kind of takes on a life of it's own. I still intend on trying to throw my points out there but right now I'm just busy responding. I'd appreciate it if you could go over and read my intro to at least see where I come from on the issue.
Dee, are these the questions? I shall do my best...
1. Why should Gay people get special treatment over other alternative lifestyles? I'm not quite sure how to answer this question, for the definition of "alternative lifestyles" seems open to interpretation. I will say that I don't think recognizing a gay marriage necessarily constitutes "special treatment". I would like to think that the acceptance of the concept of gay marriage would come organically, where the general population comes to the conclusion rather than having the Courts thrust the recognition upon society. However, I have my doubts as to whether or not this is a realistic hope. I believe that much of the resistance to societal changes comes about because the changes are forced on society without society being ready to acknowledge those changes. For instance, much of the anger relating to the abortion debate is fueled by the manner in which abortion became legalized...through the courts (5 out of 9 elite men in black robes perhaps exceeding their authority to find constitutional rights that weren't clearly enumerated). Now that abortion is legal, it seems that the most effective way to end the practice is to appeal to "the better angels" of individuals rather than to rely on any politician to make good on an empty campaign promise. I see it the same way with gay marriage...I'd rather change minds one-at-a-time than force the issue on society through the courts...because that just makes people more intractable. In other words, I would like to get to a point where gay marriage isn't largely considered "special treatment". Is that realistic? Probably not. So the debate goes on.
2. What is the point of marriage in society? Marriage is the public expression of one's love and exclusive lifetime commitment to another. I was raised Catholic and was versed in the symbolism of the "Unity Candle"...before the wedding, two candles are lit and a third remains unlit. At the conclusion of the wedding, bride and groom light the third "unity" candle and extinguish the other two, symbolising two entities merging into one. Bride and groom are in effect one entity, an extension of each other for life. During the wedding Mass (or Catholic ceremony without Mass), the bride and groom are asked a series of questions including whether or not they would accept God's gift of children to the marriage. The question suggests that God may or may not bless the marriage with children, but that if God chooses to do so, the married couple is to graciously accept the gift. I'm well aware that my personal belief (that 2 gay people who wish to commit their lives to each other in the same manner should be permitted to marry) is at odds with the teachings of the Church that raised me, but I'd like to think I've thought the issue through rationally...so I'm at peace with that chasm.
3. What is the best situation for a Female child to be raised in? What is the best situation for a Male child to be raised in? What would be your preference for your childhood? Are you unhappy with the family structure you were raised in (I'm not talking about problems with a parent- the structure only)? Do you wish it would have been different? Why? Dee, I was one of the lucky ones. I was raised by two loving parents (a mother and father who are still married). The only small regret I have about my childhood is that there were times my parents were slightly overprotective which can lead to some unintended consequences. Sometimes the very thing that your parents wish to protect you from is the thing that you inevitably must face down at some point in your life. In that case, you may find yourself unprepared to effectively deal with that you were protected from. But if that's the worst you can say about your childhood, I think you've been extremely fortunate...which I believe I am. To me, the best situation for any child, girl or boy, is to be in a loving home with people who make it their primary concern to feed you, clothe you and commit to looking after your childhood needs, including faith and education. The love and commitment are the two most important aspects to me. Of course, it is ideal that children be raised by the parents who produced them. Love, in those circumstances, is instinctive, not learned. But I also believe that many natural parents see their children as a "divine burden"...the raising of children is a joyful obligation, but because the child is "thrust upon" them, they may be less prepared to handle the difficulties (that said, their instinctive love will most often fill the preparedness void). Ultimately, my acceptance/approval of gay adoption stems from my great respect for anyone who would willingly accept the obligation of raising "someone else's child". The level of selflessness and commitment that a decision like that takes is awe-inspiring...especially when not all natural parents maintain the same level of those ideals. I'll grant that adoptive parents (homosexual and heterosexual) are not always good parents...some are in over their heads, some just don't have the commitment they thought they had, some may even be abusive. But I believe that there is much to be said for adoptive parents because they are subjecting themselves to a great deal of scrutiny to promise to raise a child...a challenge that relatively few are willing to accept. Therefore, if two men wish to adopt a girl and prove suitably committed to her well-being, I don't see a problem. All things being equal, perhaps a heterosexual couple should get the first opportunity to adopt and raise a child...but I believe that love and commitment trump the sexual orientation of the parents...so if a gay couple has that clear advantage over a heterosexual married couple, the child is better off with the gay couple. I hope that clarifies my position.
On the first point - I agree whole heartedly that if you want something to have widespread acceptance there needs to be and honest and open debate and then the public should decide not the courts. I can't imagine that the public (knowing all the positions) would support favoring people based on who they decide to have sex with or not. A single person who decides to swear off romantic relationships due to a broken heart or what ever should still be able to live with a friend or family member and get the same benefits.
On the second point of the purpose of marriage in society, you are looking at it from a religious perspective and I'm not. The government shouldn't care whether two people stay together or not when they don't have any children. From a religious perspective I think any church that wants to marry gay people should be free to do so and they are. It's the government license that I have a problem with. When it's in the Church, then people in that church who are offended by it can go to a church that doesn't allow it.
The role of government in encouraging marriage is to benefit society in general and giving kids a better chance of being raised by committed people who can give a child of either sex the unique things that either sex has to offer. Two loving committed people of the opposite sex are preferable for raising children than two loving committed people of the same sex. The government shouldn't and doesn't outlaw single people having children or Gay people having children but it shouldn't encourage it as being just as preferable as two good parents of opposite sex either.
The key to the last point is what you said near the end. "All things being equal, perhaps a heterosexual couple should get the first opportunity to adopt and raise a child..." there should be no buts. The government can't get in the business of saying this Gay couple would love and be better parents than this hetero couple or visa versa. When people want to adopt there should minimum requirements based based on tangible things like commitment (marriage or civil union) Income (just enough to support not spoil) No history of violence and maybe some other things. After those minimum requirements are met then priority should be given to hetero couples of the same race, then hetero couples of a different race then Gay people or straight people with civil unions, then single people. That is what would be best for children.
Dee is correct, and pointing to an act of gender discrimination within the system, since gay adoption would favor one gender over a co-ed partnership for the child.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
What do you mean by saying gay adoption "would favor one gender over a co-ed partnership for the child"? Seems to me that each adoption (gay or otherwise) would favor one particular couple over another...assuming another couple exists. Adoption isn't a "one size fits all" proposition. Perhaps I'm seizing on the notion that each adoption situation is unique relative to a number of factors (location, age of child, age of adoptive parents, sexual orientation of adoptive parents, financial issues, need, etc.). I don't think individual adoptions necessarily lead to greater societal consequences. By saying that gay adoption would "favor one gender", are you suggesting an overall systematic favortism? In other words do you believe that gay adoptions would essentially become the rule and not the exception...that all things being equal the facilitator would be compelled to choose a gay couple to raise the child over a heterosexual couple? If that's your position, I sincerely doubt that would happen. If it isn't your position, I'm sorry to have misunderstood.
An agenda, for me, doesn't have a sexual orientation. To me, the agendas of the right and the left involve increasing the size of our already obese federal & state governments. They're winning while I'm losing, and the idea of an agenda with a sexual orientation is just a sideshow distraction whether it's being alleged by the right or mocked by the left.
JMR
The Gay agenda is driven by the loud and obnoxious ones like everything else. The agenda is to secure favored treatment in everything from marriage and adoption to insurance and Gay Day's at Disney world and thousands of other places.
Being someone who has been trapped in the obnoxious Gay pride parade in Chicago for 3 hours (not including the time to get to the general location) and missing a play that I had tickets to, I've been personally affected by their special treatment. Anyone else who has a parade in the City of Chicago has to do it on a Sunday Morning so as to cause the least traffic problems. They are allowed to flaunt their parade in the late afternoon so as to disturb and force their agenda on as many people as possible. It's absurd. The late night party girl Transvestite types don't want to get up early so screw everyone else.
Most Gay people just want to be accepted and not judged but the loud and obnoxious ones like to Gay bate and cause devision by making special requests that most Gay people would not have made. Many reasonable Gay people start believing in the agenda because the obnoxious ones are successful at Gay bating. Normal Gays are made to fear that they will be forced back in the closet.
Leon, I'll make it simple (be careful not to skim this).
PART I. PUBLIC AGENDA
1. Do you agree the LGBT community consider themselves their own subculture, their own community, and not simply something made up by a bunch of Dobsonian right-wingers?
2. If you agree with #1, then do you believe the LGBT community is "allied" with many local and national feminist groups? For what reason? Do you believe the word "ally" is code for a member of a resistance movement that isn't part of the movement by nature?
3. If you believe 1 & 2 to a certain extent, then do you also believe they raise money and provide legal counsel for an exclusive set of what they consider "equal rights" issues?
2. I personally do not believe in a secret gay agenda, but rather it's more of an overall social privilege movement with the set of goals described in #3 above. Thus, social conservatives would naturally oppose it.
3. Futher, I believe the movement is only led by a minority within the LGBT community. I'm sure most gays just want to be left alone to live their own lives without being drafted into one "movement" or another.
4. However, there is an additional; more peripheral conflict that distracts from the main issues above, and social liberals have some strong leverage on this one. They contend that since the LGBT community no longer wants to be recognized as "second class" citizens, then there is no reason for any "hidden agendas."
Because of this, they can mock social conservatives who oppose the LGBT community as superstitiously hysterical, prone to jumping at shadows, and likely to back conspiracy theories involving a velvet_mafia.
Individuals like Michael_Swift and Stephen Colbert confuse the issue further, by failing to let the casual channel-surfing audience in on the joke. This stuff backfires and causes the accusations to take on a validity and life of their own. Sometimes a little satire can be quite expensive.
5. Some members of the evangelical right would argue with me and point to Marshall Kirk's After The Ball as an actual blueprint of a hidden_agenda. However, I contend that this book is only as valid as the leaders who use it. I also do not believe that groups such as Focus on the Family are following the Biblical mandate, but rather a new form of social gospel.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
"And I've seen you, in other threads on this topic, make reference to the frightening possibility of a gay scoutleader taking boys on trips and so forth, so don't tell me that's not an element of it."
Fine, I'll find your post along these lines from fall. Later.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
In my first two posts on this thread, I addressed the practicality of
the issue. If BSA were to allow gay leaders and scouts, then most
parents would refuse to allow their sons to go camping. That would
destroy scouting, since the vast majority of all youths who join
Scouting do so for the camping.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Where does that reference the "frightening" possibility of a gay scoutleader taking boys on trips?
I clearly made the point that it was a practical issue. Parents would take the practical approach if gays were to be openly allowed in Scouting.
Not only do you attempt to make it appear that I said they would act out of "fright", you attempt to make it appear that parents of Scouts fear homosexuals. Shame on you for raising the phony specter of "homophobia."
And you still owe me an apology for lying about what I said.
RJ, I think that claiming it would effectively ruin scouting does indeed refer to the fact that the prospect would be frightening. That's not to say it wouldn't be a practical sense of fright, I'll grant you. What you seem to not understand is that at no point have I condemned or criticized the parents for this attitude. As I reiterated on the other board. Therefore, I am not raising the "specter" of homophobia.
Look, I claimed that you'd made reference to the camping issue, and I specifically remembered the thread which I've cited. Clearly you did not remember saying it. No big deal. I'm not accusing you of anything bad here, just saying that you, as well, have brought up the issue in the past. Can you just admit you were wrong?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I think you find it easy to misrepresent (or misinterpret) my words because, unconsciously or not, it validates your liberal concept of widespread homophobia.
It's interesting that you're so understanding and that you make benign allowances for what you call parent's "fright", while insisting that you're not talking about homophobia. Why are you so reluctant to use the word, when you label them with the concept again and again?
Let's keep it clear. You didn't claim I "made reference to the camping issue." You claimed I said "frightening possibility of a gay scoutleader, etc." That's been your repeated concept, not mine.
Even if it was inadvertent, you still owe me an apology for stating that untruth.
Nope, sorry RJ. Here are my exact, unadulterated, cut 'n pasted words:
And I've seen you, in other threads on this topic, make reference to the frightening possibility of a gay scoutleader taking boys on trips and so forth, so don't tell me that's not an element of it.
"Make reference". That's all I said. Now you're trying to put words in my mouth about homophobia. Desperation is a stinky cologne. Even your conservative compatriots know you're in the wrong on this one (I won't name names).
If anything, you owe me an apology for calling me a liar.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
It remains YOUR repeated contention that "mincing" Scoutleaders are "frightening." Nothing in my words, past or present, indicates that idea....making your continued insistence a deliberate lie. Looks like my earlier assessment that you weren't among the petty posters on this board was incorrect. :^)
Again, you can deny it as much as you want, but you can't escape the fact that your assessment that parents are "frightened" of gay Scoutleaders is just a not-so-subtle euphemism for homophobia.
That's ok about the apology, though. You can't help who you are.
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness and who expended all of his energies on preserving his opinions from contamination." -Michael Chabon, "Gentlemen of the Road"
Well, in the post that you wrote months ago, you contend that gay scoutmasters would mean the end of scouting because they couldn't be trusted on camping trips. What adjective other than "frightening" would you say is appropriate to be used to describe parental reaction in this way. For approximately the 10th time today, I don't think anyone can blame parents for being a little freaked out about the prospect. I probably would be too (except, of course, I don't have kids, so some people might say I'm disqualified from having an opinion on the matter).
But seriously, this is just getting outrageous. You tried to call me out and claim that you never made a comment about gay scoutmasters ruining scouting because parents wouldn't be able to trust them. I have definitively proven that you did make such comments. Should I go get more of your posts to that effect? Wouldn't be hard. And now you're trying to take issue with my word choice of "frightening" and construe it into a euphemism for homophobia? Even though I've made it clear over and over again that parents aren't to be blamed for such an attitude?
Damn RJ, there's sticking to your guns and there's just being pathetic.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
most parents would refuse to allow their sons to go camping.
And what would be the controlling emotion behind that perfectly reasonable decision? Would it not be synonymous or at least close to something like "fear" or "fright"?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
...now you're adding to your misrepresentations. First you attempt to project "frightening" (a word I never used) onto me, when it's really your very own eupmemism for homophobia.
Now you claim I said Scoutleaders "couldn't be trusted" and that gay Scoutmasters will ruin Scouting. What's next in your make-believe world?
P.S. The controlling motivation would be practicality. Your use of the word emotion reveals your own mindset.
References can be editorialized. Direct quotes cannot. Both of which Jason capitalized upon.
Furthermore, direct quotes with a valid implication (such as a fear-based motive) can be used to make a vaild accusation.
What is the practical purpose of keeping your kids away from a gay scoutmaster?
We know an immediate motive when we see one, and the "practical argument" is a subjective one at best, because where Jason would feel safe with his kids in a gay BSA jamboree (the opposite of fear). I would not. Thus, practicality is subject to one's sense of fear as to whether the scoutmaster will keep it in his pants or not.
So the point goes to Jason and will logically continue to stand regardless.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
...and so much for your word. Sigh...the vacation was VERY nice...
As is so often the case, your "logic" is strained and valuless.
For example:
1) not that I agree with your proposition, but to play along...if direct quotes cannot be editorialized, why do you give Jason's editorializing of my quote a pass?
2) "fear based motive" is your inference, not my implication.
3) once again....I didn't say anything about "keeping kids away from a gay Scoutmaster"....but if you assume fear, that's on you, not me.
4) the practical argument is subjective at best? but the frightened argument is not?
(BTW, since it was my post, and since I used the word "practical", I'm gonna go with my own assessment of my meaning. ;^> )
5) "gay BSA jamboree? Huh? Way to escalate into your very own fear-fest, trach. Hey, Jason, I bet you and trach can have a great discussion about homophobia..... :^)
In fact, you guys just have at it....I'm getting tired of repeating myself to deliberately deaf ears.
RJ:So much for your self-imposed promise to ignore me, trach...and so much for your word.
If it's self-imposed, I can take it back, no? Besides, I wasn't arguing to you directly and I never mentioned your name. Why do you have this problem with remaining detached from the subject? Never hit reply to any of your posts, either. Your accusation is only valid to this post, not the ones you refer to.
The case is clear now that you play dirty on NB and you're a cheater. You'll say anything to wiggle out of the messes you get yourself into. That makes other conservatives look bad. Let the record show we don't put up with it and we police our own around here, both on and offline.
RJ:Sigh...the vacation was VERY nice...
And I think I proved my point long enough after you accused me of stalking you.
RJ:As is so often the case, your "logic" is strained and valuless.
"Say so" statements and subjective value judgements only hold water with the individual making them.
RJ:1) not that I agree with your proposition, but to play along...if direct quotes cannot be editorialized, why do you give Jason's editorializing of my quote a pass?
I stated because he deduced the implication of it. It was a fair implication and the editorial is peripheral. Fitz and I see how he did it (and granted, it was crafty), but well played nonetheless.
RJ: 2) "fear based motive" is your inference, not my implication.
Then you are obligated to come up with an alternative reason why parents would think it practical to keep their kids from gay scoutmasters. Sure, fair is fair. Let's hear it.
RJ:3) once again....I didn't say anything about "keeping kids away from a gay Scoutmaster"....but if you assume fear, that's on you, not me.
Oh yay. Now I get to quote you.
"If BSA were to allow gay leaders and scouts, then most
parents would refuse to allow their sons to go camping."
Refusal to allow to go = keep away.
The context was always the camping trip. See my other post on this. You're flailing and you're lying. Ooh! I just played your pet card RJ, what are you gonna do now???
RJ:4) the practical argument is subjective at best? but the frightened argument is not?
The parent would see it as a practical solution to protect their child from danger. Thus fear for the child. What'd I miss?
RJ: (BTW, since it was my post, and since I used the word "practical", I'm gonna go with my own assessment of my meaning. ;^> )
No problem. I'd love to see your definition of the word.
RJ:5) "gay BSA jamboree? Huh? Way to escalate into your very own fear-fest, trach. Hey, Jason, I bet you and trach can have a great discussion about homophobia..... :^)
But then you would have to pull a fearful implication from it, correct? I included myself in my examples. So #5 is pointless.
RJ:In fact, you guys just have at it....I'm getting tired of repeating myself to deliberately deaf ears.
Thanks. Don't forget we're all waiting for you to fail again, so choose your words carefully next time.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
And now RJ falls back to his default mode of ad hominem to salve his pride.
I am just as welcome to reply to any posts made here, just as anyone else. Callng me a stalker is incredibly rude, unfair, and way over the line. Just another dirty tactic.
Further, RJ's not only procrastinating on fulfilling his obligations above*, but now he's saddled himself with the responsibility of having to prove where I allegedly lied.
I agree with Fitz. This is pathetic. And the ad hominem is older than old. I call troll shenanigans here. Foul play. . .all the way.
-PJ
*I gave him the fair and just benefit of the doubt on the definition of "practical", and then he fails to follow up.
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Let me get this straight, fitz: A buncha posters attempt to insult a guy by fantasizing that he's a woman...said guy gives a healthy horse-laugh at their misogynistic behavior....but it's the guy who needs to "seek help?" haha! Good one, fitz! :^)
For the record, I was only pointing out the surprising development of conservative posters adopting Leon's signature taunt.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Only if you're really so self-absorbed as to actually believe that I only respond exclusively to your posts.
I don't believe that.
Therefore, you're faking it.
The "stalker" argument is only good for diverting away from the topic you're currently failing at, and also falls well within the specific guidelines of an argumentum ad hominem and name calling that is unsupported by evidence.
Second, it's a VERY serious accusation to be making, given the recent rise in genuine cyber-stalking, and I will make an issue of this to the admins if you don't shut the hell up.
I'm still not responding to your PMs. Either you're falsely accusing me of a real crime RJ (and you've crossed the line) or you're just crying wolf.
I will take this up with the admins.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
haha! Way to go, Stalker....pretty sneaky, trying to make it appear I've been chasing you with PMs. Our last (and only) PMs were back and forth over a couple of days in January (four or five each, if I remember), and I laughed at you for breaking your self-imposed boycott of me....immediately after you made it. :^)
Now you claim I said Scoutleaders "couldn't be trusted" and that gay Scoutmasters will ruin Scouting.
As to the first clause, it is absolutely logical to assume that if the presence of gay scoutmasters would cause parents to disallow their kids from going on camping trips, there is an element of distrust. In the second clause, you chose to use the word "destroy". My word choice of ruin is actually mild by comparison, no?
Also, note that I have not ascribed the emotion of "fright" to you. I was broadly conceptualizing the entire BSA vs. Gay Activists flap. And in spite of my use of that word, it does not convey homophobia. If you remember, I also referred to the gay activists in that situation as "opportunists", but that doesn't mean I was insulting all gay people, now does it?
I know that I've used the homophobia label before, but not in reference to parents who choose to keep their kids away from potentially homosexual scoutmasters; that's their perfectly reasonable choice. Your attempt to read homophobic accusations into my earlier post has failed.
And yes, Trach is absolutely right. If you're going to keep up the accusations that I am utterly wrong and being homophobic, then you're obligated to supply an alternate emotion, other than "fear" or "fright" which would cause them to keep their kids out of scouts w/ a gay leader.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Now we can add this to your growing list of misrepresenting what I said:
"If you're going to keep up the accusations that I am utterly wrong and being homophobic, then you're obligated to supply an alternate emotion, other than "fear" or "fright" which would cause them to keep their kids out of scouts w/ a gay leader. ..."
In the first place, I haven't called you homophobic. I have repeatedly said you're accusing others of being homophobic with your usage of the euphemism "frightened."
In the second, it's your conceit, not mine, that I was talking about "emotions." That means, of course, that I have no obligation to supply you with an alternative emotion to your resulting claims of fear and fright.
You're right about one thing, I meant to say: If you're going to keep up the accusations that I am utterly wrong and falsely accusing othersof being homophobic.
So yes, I misspoke there and inadvertently misrepresented your claims about me.
And fine, so you don't like my use of the term emotion (even though it is perfectly legitimate). But you still have not told us what motivation or impetus would be behind parents not allowing kids to go camping with gay scoutleaders if not fear. You have loudly proclaimed it is not based on fear. What is it based on then? If you want to retain a shred of dignity and intellectual integrity, at least attempt to give us an answer on this.
So Trach's just stalking you? Sure. What about Fitz and Cool Arrow? What's your excuse for them?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I don't think I've ever had anything to do with fitz until a couple of days ago, but the other Four Amigos (three evangelicals and leon) have been piling on for months now....and they're always good for a laugh. A group of "strange bedfellows" indeed. Guess which one is the dumb(est) sidekick who is always needing to be bailed out of trouble?
Are you applying to be the Fifth Amigo, Jason? Until recently, I'd have said you don't qualify....not petty enough and all that.... :^)
This isn't petty at all. This is about me pointing out that you once made reference to the very element of my argument that you were calling simplistic and stupid. It is about you calling me a liar for pointing that out. And finally, it is about my producing incontrovertible evidence that you did, in fact, say what I claimed.
The funny thing is, you could have just said "Oh, I guess I did make reference to that; guess I forgot. Sorry for calling you a liar." And we could have parted amicably. Instead, you've clung to my one word choice, "frightening", like a rhetorical liferaft; trying your very best to turn it into a demonstration of me making accusations of homophobia. All this in spite of the fact that you still haven't given us one single alternative adjective. So let's have it: what is the impetus, motivation, feeling (anything but emotion!) behind parents not letting their kid go on camping trips with gay leaders?
I'm really starting to enjoy this. Not since SportPolitics' heyday have I seen such a refusal to just accept obvious defeat.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
My, my RJ, you are a slippery fellow. You don't work for Mark Geragos, by chance? Jason got you dead-to-rights on that quotation, and you still have the nerve to demand an apology from him? Give it up, RJ, you're taking on water.
A more accurate way of looking at my "position" in this thread so far is that it's similar to your role in the previous thread...the most obvious difference being that I know what I'm talking about. :-)
The fundamental premise is that if the BSA were to allow gay leaders and scouts alike, then most parents would refuse to allow their sons to go camping.
Therefore this is a protective, or fear-based reaction on the parent's part that gay scouts and scout leaders will fail to remain platonic and self-controlled.
Is the fear valid? That's arguable.
But it is a direct implication of fear.
Point to Jason.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Geez, where were all you guys when I already had my_own solution to the gay marriage debate???
Or did you just want to rehash the same old talking points?
Fine with me, but if you really want to get an edge on the other team, I suggest you read the link. I'd be happy to answer any questions or contentions, but just make sure you read the thread first. That's my playbook and it's pretty much airtight. A couple members already stubbed their toe from kicking the tires.
So before you waste your time giving yourself carpal tunnel with the usual arguments, I strongly recommend you check yourself against my answers.
1. So-called "gay marriage" is the most insidious form of gender bias. It also favors an economic bias, and it is patently unconstitutional.
2. Monogamous gays and feminist gays demean their own subculture and their cause by parroting a practice based on an oppressive patriarchal tradition.
3. Gay marriage is itself bias among monogamous gays, because it is not inclusive of the greater GLBT community as a whole.
4. The classical arguments both for and against gay marriage are in and of themselves faulty and/or ultimately futile. There are other solutions.
The issue itself is settled. Gay marriage is itself an oxymoron and is 100% ruled out as a rational goal. All that is required now is distrubution and application of the real solution. The constitutionalists will win the legal battle, but the social liberals and licentious as a whole will win the war*.
As stated above, questions are warmly welcomed, but I must warn you. Don't assume too much and make sure you haven't already been answered.
I don't want anyone to look like a total idiot.
-PJ
*Until Shiloh comes.
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Yeah, this one blew up quick. I keep thinking that if I stay up a little later (it's almost midnight on the east coast, don't know where you are) I might get to see RJ accuse me of "raising the specter of homophobia" again. That was good for a laugh; made me feel like a sorcerer or something.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Wow great thread. Very interesting to watch such a dedicated NB like RJ completely unravel.
It was only a matter of time before someone actually figured out how to use the search function and show that RJ just blabs and blabs and blabs and then denies her own words down the road when they are no longer convenient.
Can we say zero credibility? Let's all say it together!
Man, RJ's husband is going to be angry. Better watch out. He's coming for you all!
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
My first comment is in
February 16, 2008 - 17:44 ET by JasonCMy first comment is in response to RJ's. RJ wrote on the other thread:
How many times can i say it? I don't care what your "project" is.
Obviously, you're eager to devolve my specific points into your larger
argument about homosexual marriage...but I have no interest in doing
so. I addressed something specific said by fitz and my interest begins and ends there.
No matter how often you deny it, fitz misrepresented what Mrbill said, and I showed just how he did so.
Are you REALLY naive enough to claim there has been no "aggressive and
unrelenting attack machine operated by dishonest gay activists?"
Regarding my reference to the BSA and the courts, you AGAIN try to bring in your larger "project".
Yes, I derisively dismissed your shallow understanding of what has
been going on in the "war" against the BSA and why. The ACLU, the
activist gay community, and a wide range of leftists are actively and
aggressively committed to their destruction. No offense intended, but
your characterization of BSA supporters who fear "mincing" Scoutmasters
shows how appallingly ignorant you are on the subject.
END OF RJ'S POST
Here's my reply, to kick off this forum:
What specific points? You made a claim about some homosexual attack
machine and I asked for evidence of that along with some perfectly
legitimate follow-up questions.
I don't know about Fitz, but I've given you my interpretation of misterbill's comments.
That
is my assessment of the BSA incidents and I will not apologize for it.
Since you apparently have a far superior understanding of it, why don't
you put your chips on the table and explain what it is. Sorry, but
saying "The ACLU, the activist gay community, and a wide range of of
leftists
are actively and aggressively committed to their destruction" is vague
fearmongering. I'm sure you have details to share. And I've seen you,
in other threads on this topic, make reference to the frightening
possibility of a gay scoutleader taking boys on trips and so forth, so
don't tell me that's not an element of it. My only point is that while
that's an understandable fear, it doesn't make scoutleaders any more to
have pedophilic tendencies or to act on them.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason
February 16, 2008 - 18:11 ET by Dee BunkSorry - I just posted something in the off topic discussion before I got your PM. There are so many issues here and we probably need both.
While I do agree with Mr. Bill and RJ that there is an organized Gay attack machine and a Gay agenda, it's irrelevant to my positions on Gay marriage, Gay adoption, and Civil Unions.
Dee, let's use yours.
February 16, 2008 - 18:13 ET by JasonCDee, let's use yours. You've already written a nice long intro. I'll cut and paste my above comment/exchange with RJ and put it in yours and we'll call my forum kaput, OK?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason - I think keeping both are good. I probably
February 16, 2008 - 18:32 ET by Dee Bunkdon't really have time to make any points until tomorrow on mine anyway.
Dee, sounds good. My wife
February 16, 2008 - 18:34 ET by JasonCDee, sounds good. My wife just got home, so I am not going to spend the rest of the evening in front of a computer either. Time to start dinner. Let's hope that with this fresh start, we'll each be able to better understand where the other is coming from.
Cheers,
JC
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
the big road-block for me is
February 16, 2008 - 19:38 ET by TruthMongerthe big road-block for me is the progressive hypocracy - when the pro-gay crowd gets consistent and also backs the peds/et al they may have enough credibility to effectively assert alternate-lifestyle nuptuals such as gay marriage
We're not supporting
February 16, 2008 - 20:26 ET by JasonCWe're not supporting pedophilia. Get that little idee fixe out of your head, please.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Hey, Dee. Now do you see
February 16, 2008 - 20:58 ET by fitzfongHey, Dee. Now do you see why I raised the slippery slope argument with you?
Fitz - please see my response to truth in the other thread
February 17, 2008 - 10:12 ET by Dee BunkI don't think he means it the way you think, but I still think it's an inappropriate comparison. My point with you before is that you wouldn't address what I was saying on the issue, only what others have said.
Dee, I'm not clear on what
February 17, 2008 - 16:29 ET by fitzfongDee, I'm not clear on what it is you contend I "wouldn't address" from what you said on the issue. I'd be more than happy to address and discuss those concerns here if you'd just clue me in. Thanks.
Fitz - I appreciate your willingness to stick with the issue
February 17, 2008 - 17:46 ET by Dee Bunkand clarify - like Jason. I intended on making my specific points again in individual posts so it wouldn't be confusing, but as always the thread kind of takes on a life of it's own. I still intend on trying to throw my points out there but right now I'm just busy responding. I'd appreciate it if you could go over and read my intro to at least see where I come from on the issue.
Dee, are these the
February 18, 2008 - 23:16 ET by fitzfongDee, are these the questions? I shall do my best...
1. Why should Gay people get special treatment over other alternative lifestyles? I'm not quite sure how to answer this question, for the definition of "alternative lifestyles" seems open to interpretation. I will say that I don't think recognizing a gay marriage necessarily constitutes "special treatment". I would like to think that the acceptance of the concept of gay marriage would come organically, where the general population comes to the conclusion rather than having the Courts thrust the recognition upon society. However, I have my doubts as to whether or not this is a realistic hope. I believe that much of the resistance to societal changes comes about because the changes are forced on society without society being ready to acknowledge those changes. For instance, much of the anger relating to the abortion debate is fueled by the manner in which abortion became legalized...through the courts (5 out of 9 elite men in black robes perhaps exceeding their authority to find constitutional rights that weren't clearly enumerated). Now that abortion is legal, it seems that the most effective way to end the practice is to appeal to "the better angels" of individuals rather than to rely on any politician to make good on an empty campaign promise. I see it the same way with gay marriage...I'd rather change minds one-at-a-time than force the issue on society through the courts...because that just makes people more intractable. In other words, I would like to get to a point where gay marriage isn't largely considered "special treatment". Is that realistic? Probably not. So the debate goes on.
2. What is the point of marriage in society? Marriage is the public expression of one's love and exclusive lifetime commitment to another. I was raised Catholic and was versed in the symbolism of the "Unity Candle"...before the wedding, two candles are lit and a third remains unlit. At the conclusion of the wedding, bride and groom light the third "unity" candle and extinguish the other two, symbolising two entities merging into one. Bride and groom are in effect one entity, an extension of each other for life. During the wedding Mass (or Catholic ceremony without Mass), the bride and groom are asked a series of questions including whether or not they would accept God's gift of children to the marriage. The question suggests that God may or may not bless the marriage with children, but that if God chooses to do so, the married couple is to graciously accept the gift. I'm well aware that my personal belief (that 2 gay people who wish to commit their lives to each other in the same manner should be permitted to marry) is at odds with the teachings of the Church that raised me, but I'd like to think I've thought the issue through rationally...so I'm at peace with that chasm.
3. What is the best situation for a Female child to be raised in? What is the best situation for a Male child to be raised in? What would be your preference for your childhood? Are you unhappy with the family structure you were raised in (I'm not talking about problems with a parent- the structure only)? Do you wish it would have been different? Why? Dee, I was one of the lucky ones. I was raised by two loving parents (a mother and father who are still married). The only small regret I have about my childhood is that there were times my parents were slightly overprotective which can lead to some unintended consequences. Sometimes the very thing that your parents wish to protect you from is the thing that you inevitably must face down at some point in your life. In that case, you may find yourself unprepared to effectively deal with that you were protected from. But if that's the worst you can say about your childhood, I think you've been extremely fortunate...which I believe I am. To me, the best situation for any child, girl or boy, is to be in a loving home with people who make it their primary concern to feed you, clothe you and commit to looking after your childhood needs, including faith and education. The love and commitment are the two most important aspects to me. Of course, it is ideal that children be raised by the parents who produced them. Love, in those circumstances, is instinctive, not learned. But I also believe that many natural parents see their children as a "divine burden"...the raising of children is a joyful obligation, but because the child is "thrust upon" them, they may be less prepared to handle the difficulties (that said, their instinctive love will most often fill the preparedness void). Ultimately, my acceptance/approval of gay adoption stems from my great respect for anyone who would willingly accept the obligation of raising "someone else's child". The level of selflessness and commitment that a decision like that takes is awe-inspiring...especially when not all natural parents maintain the same level of those ideals. I'll grant that adoptive parents (homosexual and heterosexual) are not always good parents...some are in over their heads, some just don't have the commitment they thought they had, some may even be abusive. But I believe that there is much to be said for adoptive parents because they are subjecting themselves to a great deal of scrutiny to promise to raise a child...a challenge that relatively few are willing to accept. Therefore, if two men wish to adopt a girl and prove suitably committed to her well-being, I don't see a problem. All things being equal, perhaps a heterosexual couple should get the first opportunity to adopt and raise a child...but I believe that love and commitment trump the sexual orientation of the parents...so if a gay couple has that clear advantage over a heterosexual married couple, the child is better off with the gay couple. I hope that clarifies my position.
Fitz -Thanks for answering. I think you agree with
February 20, 2008 - 14:24 ET by Dee Bunkme but you just don't realize it : )
On the first point - I agree whole heartedly that if you want something to have widespread acceptance there needs to be and honest and open debate and then the public should decide not the courts. I can't imagine that the public (knowing all the positions) would support favoring people based on who they decide to have sex with or not. A single person who decides to swear off romantic relationships due to a broken heart or what ever should still be able to live with a friend or family member and get the same benefits.
On the second point of the purpose of marriage in society, you are looking at it from a religious perspective and I'm not. The government shouldn't care whether two people stay together or not when they don't have any children. From a religious perspective I think any church that wants to marry gay people should be free to do so and they are. It's the government license that I have a problem with. When it's in the Church, then people in that church who are offended by it can go to a church that doesn't allow it.
The role of government in encouraging marriage is to benefit society in general and giving kids a better chance of being raised by committed people who can give a child of either sex the unique things that either sex has to offer. Two loving committed people of the opposite sex are preferable for raising children than two loving committed people of the same sex. The government shouldn't and doesn't outlaw single people having children or Gay people having children but it shouldn't encourage it as being just as preferable as two good parents of opposite sex either.
The key to the last point is what you said near the end. "All things being equal, perhaps a heterosexual couple should get the first opportunity to adopt and raise a child..." there should be no buts. The government can't get in the business of saying this Gay couple would love and be better parents than this hetero couple or visa versa. When people want to adopt there should minimum requirements based based on tangible things like commitment (marriage or civil union) Income (just enough to support not spoil) No history of violence and maybe some other things. After those minimum requirements are met then priority should be given to hetero couples of the same race, then hetero couples of a different race then Gay people or straight people with civil unions, then single people. That is what would be best for children.
Dee is correct, and
February 20, 2008 - 14:34 ET by tracheostomyDee is correct, and pointing to an act of gender discrimination within the system, since gay adoption would favor one gender over a co-ed partnership for the child.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
and I'm sorry Trach - I still plan on reading your thread!
February 20, 2008 - 14:37 ET by Dee Bunkand I'm sorry Trach - I still plan on reading your thread! I hope to tomorrow.
What do you mean by saying
February 20, 2008 - 16:44 ET by fitzfongWhat do you mean by saying gay adoption "would favor one gender over a co-ed partnership for the child"? Seems to me that each adoption (gay or otherwise) would favor one particular couple over another...assuming another couple exists. Adoption isn't a "one size fits all" proposition. Perhaps I'm seizing on the notion that each adoption situation is unique relative to a number of factors (location, age of child, age of adoptive parents, sexual orientation of adoptive parents, financial issues, need, etc.). I don't think individual adoptions necessarily lead to greater societal consequences. By saying that gay adoption would "favor one gender", are you suggesting an overall systematic favortism? In other words do you believe that gay adoptions would essentially become the rule and not the exception...that all things being equal the facilitator would be compelled to choose a gay couple to raise the child over a heterosexual couple? If that's your position, I sincerely doubt that would happen. If it isn't your position, I'm sorry to have misunderstood.
What is the Gay Agenda?
February 20, 2008 - 08:23 ET by LeonCan someone please tell me what the gay agenda is?
I hear a lot about this agenda but nobody ever provides any details.
Do you gay agenda people think that gays want everyone to be gay? Is that the agenda? Turn the world gay?
Why? I don't get it.
Can someone, anyone, during the course of the next week, lay out for us the facets/messages/platform of the gay agenda?
It would be much appreciated
Depends on each individual
February 20, 2008 - 08:27 ET by sarcasmoSome gays & women are pretty-damn-sensible. Others are pretty damn political.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Sarc, Obviously that is
February 20, 2008 - 08:32 ET by LeonSarc,
Obviously that is the case. There are certainly some loud pro-gay gays. See NYC gay pride parade for some examples.
But these people are clearly the minority in the gay community. As is always the case (see NB), the loudest are generally the most extreme.
This still doesn't answer the question though. What is this gay agenda that the right wingers are so terrified of?
I'd say there isn't one.
February 20, 2008 - 09:00 ET by sarcasmoAn agenda, for me, doesn't have a sexual orientation. To me, the agendas of the right and the left involve increasing the size of our already obese federal & state governments. They're winning while I'm losing, and the idea of an agenda with a sexual orientation is just a sideshow distraction whether it's being alleged by the right or mocked by the left.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Leon and Sarc
February 20, 2008 - 12:53 ET by Dee BunkThe Gay agenda is driven by the loud and obnoxious ones like everything else. The agenda is to secure favored treatment in everything from marriage and adoption to insurance and Gay Day's at Disney world and thousands of other places.
Being someone who has been trapped in the obnoxious Gay pride parade in Chicago for 3 hours (not including the time to get to the general location) and missing a play that I had tickets to, I've been personally affected by their special treatment. Anyone else who has a parade in the City of Chicago has to do it on a Sunday Morning so as to cause the least traffic problems. They are allowed to flaunt their parade in the late afternoon so as to disturb and force their agenda on as many people as possible. It's absurd. The late night party girl Transvestite types don't want to get up early so screw everyone else.
Most Gay people just want to be accepted and not judged but the loud and obnoxious ones like to Gay bate and cause devision by making special requests that most Gay people would not have made. Many reasonable Gay people start believing in the agenda because the obnoxious ones are successful at Gay bating. Normal Gays are made to fear that they will be forced back in the closet.
The gay agenda in a nutshell. . .
February 20, 2008 - 14:30 ET by tracheostomyLeon, I'll make it simple (be careful not to skim this).
PART I. PUBLIC AGENDA
1. Do you agree the LGBT community consider themselves their own subculture, their own community, and not simply something made up by a bunch of Dobsonian right-wingers?
2. If you agree with #1, then do you believe the LGBT community is "allied" with many local and national feminist groups? For what reason? Do you believe the word "ally" is code for a member of a resistance movement that isn't part of the movement by nature?
3. If you believe 1 & 2 to a certain extent, then do you also believe they raise money and provide legal counsel for an exclusive set of what they consider "equal rights" issues?
PART II PRIVATE AGENDA
1. Summary.
2. I personally do not believe in a secret gay agenda, but rather it's more of an overall social privilege movement with the set of goals described in #3 above. Thus, social conservatives would naturally oppose it.
3. Futher, I believe the movement is only led by a minority within the LGBT community. I'm sure most gays just want to be left alone to live their own lives without being drafted into one "movement" or another.
4. However, there is an additional; more peripheral conflict that distracts from the main issues above, and social liberals have some strong leverage on this one. They contend that since the LGBT community no longer wants to be recognized as "second class" citizens, then there is no reason for any "hidden agendas."
Because of this, they can mock social conservatives who oppose the LGBT community as superstitiously hysterical, prone to jumping at shadows, and likely to back conspiracy theories involving a velvet_mafia.
Individuals like Michael_Swift and Stephen Colbert confuse the issue further, by failing to let the casual channel-surfing audience in on the joke. This stuff backfires and causes the accusations to take on a validity and life of their own. Sometimes a little satire can be quite expensive.
5. Some members of the evangelical right would argue with me and point to Marshall Kirk's After The Ball as an actual blueprint of a hidden_agenda. However, I contend that this book is only as valid as the leaders who use it. I also do not believe that groups such as Focus on the Family are following the Biblical mandate, but rather a new form of social gospel.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
You are lying Jason
February 16, 2008 - 18:15 ET by RJ"And I've seen you, in other threads on this topic, make reference to the frightening possibility of a gay scoutleader taking boys on trips and so forth, so don't tell me that's not an element of it."
I have never said that.
You just told me you had no
February 16, 2008 - 18:17 ET by JasonCYou just told me you had no interest in this.
Fine, I'll find your post along these lines from fall. Later.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Responding to a lie doesn't indicate "interest", Jason
February 16, 2008 - 18:19 ET by RJI'll look forward to your apology.
Wow RJ, this was easy. RJ
February 16, 2008 - 18:25 ET by JasonCWow RJ, this was easy.
RJ wrote, on November 19, 2007 @ 19:09 ET:
In my first two posts on this thread, I addressed the practicality of
the issue. If BSA were to allow gay leaders and scouts, then most
parents would refuse to allow their sons to go camping. That would
destroy scouting, since the vast majority of all youths who join
Scouting do so for the camping.
http://newsbusters.o...
You lose. Bye.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Shame on you, Jason
February 16, 2008 - 18:58 ET by RJWhere does that reference the "frightening" possibility of a gay scoutleader taking boys on trips?
I clearly made the point that it was a practical issue. Parents would take the practical approach if gays were to be openly allowed in Scouting.
Not only do you attempt to make it appear that I said they would act out of "fright", you attempt to make it appear that parents of Scouts fear homosexuals. Shame on you for raising the phony specter of "homophobia."
And you still owe me an apology for lying about what I said.
RJ, I think that claiming
February 16, 2008 - 19:04 ET by JasonCRJ, I think that claiming it would effectively ruin scouting does indeed refer to the fact that the prospect would be frightening. That's not to say it wouldn't be a practical sense of fright, I'll grant you. What you seem to not understand is that at no point have I condemned or criticized the parents for this attitude. As I reiterated on the other board. Therefore, I am not raising the "specter" of homophobia.
Look, I claimed that you'd made reference to the camping issue, and I specifically remembered the thread which I've cited. Clearly you did not remember saying it. No big deal. I'm not accusing you of anything bad here, just saying that you, as well, have brought up the issue in the past. Can you just admit you were wrong?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason, regardless of your denials,
February 16, 2008 - 19:35 ET by RJI think you find it easy to misrepresent (or misinterpret) my words because, unconsciously or not, it validates your liberal concept of widespread homophobia.
It's interesting that you're so understanding and that you make benign allowances for what you call parent's "fright", while insisting that you're not talking about homophobia. Why are you so reluctant to use the word, when you label them with the concept again and again?
Let's keep it clear. You didn't claim I "made reference to the camping issue." You claimed I said "frightening possibility of a gay scoutleader, etc." That's been your repeated concept, not mine.
Even if it was inadvertent, you still owe me an apology for stating that untruth.
Nope, sorry RJ. Here are
February 16, 2008 - 20:25 ET by JasonCNope, sorry RJ. Here are my exact, unadulterated, cut 'n pasted words:
And I've seen you, in other threads on this topic, make reference to the frightening possibility of a gay scoutleader taking boys on trips and so forth, so don't tell me that's not an element of it.
"Make reference". That's all I said. Now you're trying to put words in my mouth about homophobia. Desperation is a stinky cologne. Even your conservative compatriots know you're in the wrong on this one (I won't name names).
If anything, you owe me an apology for calling me a liar.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Deliberately misrepresenting my words Jason? tsk tsk
February 16, 2008 - 23:12 ET by RJIt remains YOUR repeated contention that "mincing" Scoutleaders are "frightening." Nothing in my words, past or present, indicates that idea....making your continued insistence a deliberate lie. Looks like my earlier assessment that you weren't among the petty posters on this board was incorrect. :^)
Again, you can deny it as much as you want, but you can't escape the fact that your assessment that parents are "frightened" of gay Scoutleaders is just a not-so-subtle euphemism for homophobia.
That's ok about the apology, though. You can't help who you are.
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness and who expended all of his energies on preserving his opinions from contamination." -Michael Chabon, "Gentlemen of the Road"
Well, in the post that you
February 16, 2008 - 23:39 ET by JasonCWell, in the post that you wrote months ago, you contend that gay scoutmasters would mean the end of scouting because they couldn't be trusted on camping trips. What adjective other than "frightening" would you say is appropriate to be used to describe parental reaction in this way. For approximately the 10th time today, I don't think anyone can blame parents for being a little freaked out about the prospect. I probably would be too (except, of course, I don't have kids, so some people might say I'm disqualified from having an opinion on the matter).
But seriously, this is just getting outrageous. You tried to call me out and claim that you never made a comment about gay scoutmasters ruining scouting because parents wouldn't be able to trust them. I have definitively proven that you did make such comments. Should I go get more of your posts to that effect? Wouldn't be hard. And now you're trying to take issue with my word choice of "frightening" and construe it into a euphemism for homophobia? Even though I've made it clear over and over again that parents aren't to be blamed for such an attitude?
Damn RJ, there's sticking to your guns and there's just being pathetic.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I'll make it even simpler
February 16, 2008 - 23:45 ET by JasonCI'll make it even simpler for you big guy:
most parents would refuse to allow their sons to go camping.
And what would be the controlling emotion behind that perfectly reasonable decision? Would it not be synonymous or at least close to something like "fear" or "fright"?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Damn, Jason. Ever time you post you discover new words from me
February 17, 2008 - 00:21 ET by RJ...now you're adding to your misrepresentations. First you attempt to project "frightening" (a word I never used) onto me, when it's really your very own eupmemism for homophobia.
Now you claim I said Scoutleaders "couldn't be trusted" and that gay Scoutmasters will ruin Scouting. What's next in your make-believe world?
P.S. The controlling motivation would be practicality. Your use of the word emotion reveals your own mindset.
References can be
February 17, 2008 - 00:36 ET by tracheostomyReferences can be editorialized. Direct quotes cannot. Both of which Jason capitalized upon.
Furthermore, direct quotes with a valid implication (such as a fear-based motive) can be used to make a vaild accusation.
What is the practical purpose of keeping your kids away from a gay scoutmaster?
We know an immediate motive when we see one, and the "practical argument" is a subjective one at best, because where Jason would feel safe with his kids in a gay BSA jamboree (the opposite of fear). I would not. Thus, practicality is subject to one's sense of fear as to whether the scoutmaster will keep it in his pants or not.
So the point goes to Jason and will logically continue to stand regardless.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
So much for your self-imposed promise to ignore me, trach
February 17, 2008 - 01:07 ET by RJ...and so much for your word. Sigh...the vacation was VERY nice...
As is so often the case, your "logic" is strained and valuless.
For example:
1) not that I agree with your proposition, but to play along...if direct quotes cannot be editorialized, why do you give Jason's editorializing of my quote a pass?
2) "fear based motive" is your inference, not my implication.
3) once again....I didn't say anything about "keeping kids away from a gay Scoutmaster"....but if you assume fear, that's on you, not me.
4) the practical argument is subjective at best? but the frightened argument is not?
(BTW, since it was my post, and since I used the word "practical", I'm gonna go with my own assessment of my meaning. ;^> )
5) "gay BSA jamboree? Huh? Way to escalate into your very own fear-fest, trach. Hey, Jason, I bet you and trach can have a great discussion about homophobia..... :^)
In fact, you guys just have at it....I'm getting tired of repeating myself to deliberately deaf ears.
Ooo! Fished in a big one. . .!
February 17, 2008 - 01:45 ET by tracheostomyRJ: So much for your self-imposed promise to ignore me, trach...and so much for your word.
If it's self-imposed, I can take it back, no? Besides, I wasn't arguing to you directly and I never mentioned your name. Why do you have this problem with remaining detached from the subject? Never hit reply to any of your posts, either. Your accusation is only valid to this post, not the ones you refer to.
The case is clear now that you play dirty on NB and you're a cheater. You'll say anything to wiggle out of the messes you get yourself into. That makes other conservatives look bad. Let the record show we don't put up with it and we police our own around here, both on and offline.
RJ: Sigh...the vacation was VERY nice...
And I think I proved my point long enough after you accused me of stalking you.
RJ: As is so often the case, your "logic" is strained and valuless.
"Say so" statements and subjective value judgements only hold water with the individual making them.
RJ: 1) not that I agree with your proposition, but to play along...if direct quotes cannot be editorialized, why do you give Jason's editorializing of my quote a pass?
I stated because he deduced the implication of it. It was a fair implication and the editorial is peripheral. Fitz and I see how he did it (and granted, it was crafty), but well played nonetheless.
RJ: 2) "fear based motive" is your inference, not my implication.
Then you are obligated to come up with an alternative reason why parents would think it practical to keep their kids from gay scoutmasters. Sure, fair is fair. Let's hear it.
RJ: 3) once again....I didn't say anything about "keeping kids away from a gay Scoutmaster"....but if you assume fear, that's on you, not me.
Oh yay. Now I get to quote you.
"If BSA were to allow gay leaders and scouts, then most
parents would refuse to allow their sons to go camping."
Refusal to allow to go = keep away.
The context was always the camping trip. See my other post on this. You're flailing and you're lying. Ooh! I just played your pet card RJ, what are you gonna do now???
RJ: 4) the practical argument is subjective at best? but the frightened argument is not?
The parent would see it as a practical solution to protect their child from danger. Thus fear for the child. What'd I miss?
RJ: (BTW, since it was my post, and since I used the word "practical", I'm gonna go with my own assessment of my meaning. ;^> )
No problem. I'd love to see your definition of the word.
RJ: 5) "gay BSA jamboree? Huh? Way to escalate into your very own fear-fest, trach. Hey, Jason, I bet you and trach can have a great discussion about homophobia..... :^)
But then you would have to pull a fearful implication from it, correct? I included myself in my examples. So #5 is pointless.
RJ: In fact, you guys just have at it....I'm getting tired of repeating myself to deliberately deaf ears.
Thanks. Don't forget we're all waiting for you to fail again, so choose your words carefully next time.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Ho hum
February 17, 2008 - 02:01 ET by RJMore nonsense from my very own stalker.....just couldn't stay away, huh? ;^)
And now RJ falls back to
February 17, 2008 - 02:10 ET by tracheostomyAnd now RJ falls back to his default mode of ad hominem to salve his pride.
I am just as welcome to reply to any posts made here, just as anyone else. Callng me a stalker is incredibly rude, unfair, and way over the line. Just another dirty tactic.
Further, RJ's not only procrastinating on fulfilling his obligations above*, but now he's saddled himself with the responsibility of having to prove where I allegedly lied.
I agree with Fitz. This is pathetic. And the ad hominem is older than old. I call troll shenanigans here. Foul play. . .all the way.
-PJ
*I gave him the fair and just benefit of the doubt on the definition of "practical", and then he fails to follow up.
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
→ Trake
February 17, 2008 - 02:32 ET by Cool ArrowHaven't you figured it out yet? RJ is not a guy.
Having her own stalker is somehow tittilating.
♣ a seal
Really? So Leon was right
February 17, 2008 - 09:52 ET by JasonCReally? So Leon was right all along?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
lol! How many of youse guys can cram into that bathroom stall?
February 17, 2008 - 11:15 ET by RJBut you probably enjoy the close quarters....as you join leon in sweating over your "laptop" fantasies. ;^)
Wow, RJ. I know I told you
February 17, 2008 - 16:36 ET by fitzfongWow, RJ. I know I told you before that I pity you. But after witnessing you simply unravel over here, I REALLY pity you. Sad.
Seek help.
lol!
February 17, 2008 - 19:39 ET by RJLet me get this straight, fitz: A buncha posters attempt to insult a guy by fantasizing that he's a woman...said guy gives a healthy horse-laugh at their misogynistic behavior....but it's the guy who needs to "seek help?" haha! Good one, fitz! :^)
For the record, I was only
February 18, 2008 - 11:46 ET by JasonCFor the record, I was only pointing out the surprising development of conservative posters adopting Leon's signature taunt.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Wow, the "liar" portion
February 17, 2008 - 03:44 ET by tracheostomyWow, the "liar" portion of RJ's post was edited following my reply (damn, should have quoted him).
Therefore, I retract my challenge above demanding proof, but the rest of my statements stand.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Hey, Stalker
February 17, 2008 - 11:24 ET by RJIt's not ad hominem to call a stalker a stalker. You even tried to stop for awhile, but those obsessions are hard to break, huh?
Only if you're really so
February 17, 2008 - 14:30 ET by tracheostomyOnly if you're really so self-absorbed as to actually believe that I only respond exclusively to your posts.
I don't believe that.
Therefore, you're faking it.
The "stalker" argument is only good for diverting away from the topic you're currently failing at, and also falls well within the specific guidelines of an argumentum ad hominem and name calling that is unsupported by evidence.
Second, it's a VERY serious accusation to be making, given the recent rise in genuine cyber-stalking, and I will make an issue of this to the admins if you don't shut the hell up.
I'm still not responding to your PMs. Either you're falsely accusing me of a real crime RJ (and you've crossed the line) or you're just crying wolf.
I will take this up with the admins.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
"I'm still not responding to your PMs"
February 17, 2008 - 19:04 ET by RJhaha! Way to go, Stalker....pretty sneaky, trying to make it appear I've been chasing you with PMs. Our last (and only) PMs were back and forth over a couple of days in January (four or five each, if I remember), and I laughed at you for breaking your self-imposed boycott of me....immediately after you made it. :^)
You're really burning
February 17, 2008 - 09:54 ET by JasonCYou're really burning bridges on this one, eh?
Now you claim I said Scoutleaders "couldn't be trusted" and that gay Scoutmasters will ruin Scouting.
As to the first clause, it is absolutely logical to assume that if the presence of gay scoutmasters would cause parents to disallow their kids from going on camping trips, there is an element of distrust. In the second clause, you chose to use the word "destroy". My word choice of ruin is actually mild by comparison, no?
Also, note that I have not ascribed the emotion of "fright" to you. I was broadly conceptualizing the entire BSA vs. Gay Activists flap. And in spite of my use of that word, it does not convey homophobia. If you remember, I also referred to the gay activists in that situation as "opportunists", but that doesn't mean I was insulting all gay people, now does it?
I know that I've used the homophobia label before, but not in reference to parents who choose to keep their kids away from potentially homosexual scoutmasters; that's their perfectly reasonable choice. Your attempt to read homophobic accusations into my earlier post has failed.
And yes, Trach is absolutely right. If you're going to keep up the accusations that I am utterly wrong and being homophobic, then you're obligated to supply an alternate emotion, other than "fear" or "fright" which would cause them to keep their kids out of scouts w/ a gay leader.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason, you're piling lie on lie
February 17, 2008 - 11:44 ET by RJNow we can add this to your growing list of misrepresenting what I said:
"If you're going to keep up the accusations that I am utterly wrong and being homophobic, then you're obligated to supply an alternate emotion, other than "fear" or "fright" which would cause them to keep their kids out of scouts w/ a gay leader. ..."
In the first place, I haven't called you homophobic. I have repeatedly said you're accusing others of being homophobic with your usage of the euphemism "frightened."
In the second, it's your conceit, not mine, that I was talking about "emotions." That means, of course, that I have no obligation to supply you with an alternative emotion to your resulting claims of fear and fright.
You're right about one
February 17, 2008 - 13:33 ET by JasonCYou're right about one thing, I meant to say: If you're going to keep up the accusations that I am utterly wrong and falsely accusing others of being homophobic.
So yes, I misspoke there and inadvertently misrepresented your claims about me.
And fine, so you don't like my use of the term emotion (even though it is perfectly legitimate). But you still have not told us what motivation or impetus would be behind parents not allowing kids to go camping with gay scoutleaders if not fear. You have loudly proclaimed it is not based on fear. What is it based on then? If you want to retain a shred of dignity and intellectual integrity, at least attempt to give us an answer on this.
So Trach's just stalking you? Sure. What about Fitz and Cool Arrow? What's your excuse for them?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Haven't you been paying attention?
February 17, 2008 - 18:55 ET by RJIf not, you've been missing all the fun.
I don't think I've ever had anything to do with fitz until a couple of days ago, but the other Four Amigos (three evangelicals and leon) have been piling on for months now....and they're always good for a laugh. A group of "strange bedfellows" indeed. Guess which one is the dumb(est) sidekick who is always needing to be bailed out of trouble?
Are you applying to be the Fifth Amigo, Jason? Until recently, I'd have said you don't qualify....not petty enough and all that.... :^)
This isn't petty at all.
February 18, 2008 - 11:10 ET by JasonCThis isn't petty at all. This is about me pointing out that you once made reference to the very element of my argument that you were calling simplistic and stupid. It is about you calling me a liar for pointing that out. And finally, it is about my producing incontrovertible evidence that you did, in fact, say what I claimed.
The funny thing is, you could have just said "Oh, I guess I did make reference to that; guess I forgot. Sorry for calling you a liar." And we could have parted amicably. Instead, you've clung to my one word choice, "frightening", like a rhetorical liferaft; trying your very best to turn it into a demonstration of me making accusations of homophobia. All this in spite of the fact that you still haven't given us one single alternative adjective. So let's have it: what is the impetus, motivation, feeling (anything but emotion!) behind parents not letting their kid go on camping trips with gay leaders?
I'm really starting to enjoy this. Not since SportPolitics' heyday have I seen such a refusal to just accept obvious defeat.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
→ Jason
February 18, 2008 - 11:19 ET by Cool ArrowI've made the point a couple of times that certain posters believe "liar, liar" is some advanced form of highbrow debate.
♣ a seal
Pwnt.
February 16, 2008 - 23:39 ET by tracheostomyI'm with Fitz.
References do not have to be direct quotes to be valid.
And real conservatives don't need to cheat.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
My, my RJ, you are a
February 16, 2008 - 20:54 ET by fitzfongMy, my RJ, you are a slippery fellow. You don't work for Mark Geragos, by chance? Jason got you dead-to-rights on that quotation, and you still have the nerve to demand an apology from him? Give it up, RJ, you're taking on water.
How nice for you, fitz,
February 16, 2008 - 22:59 ET by RJthat you're such a natural fit for the position of Court Jester....no pressure to say anything intelligent.... :^)
A more accurate way of
February 16, 2008 - 23:24 ET by fitzfongA more accurate way of looking at my "position" in this thread so far is that it's similar to your role in the previous thread...the most obvious difference being that I know what I'm talking about. :-)
hahaha, fitz. Well, hell, if you know what you're talking about
February 16, 2008 - 23:32 ET by RJdon't you think it's time you shared it with the rest of us? :^)
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness...."
The fundamental premise is
February 16, 2008 - 23:47 ET by tracheostomyThe fundamental premise is that if the BSA were to allow gay leaders and scouts alike, then most parents would refuse to allow their sons to go camping.
Therefore this is a protective, or fear-based reaction on the parent's part that gay scouts and scout leaders will fail to remain platonic and self-controlled.
Is the fear valid? That's arguable.
But it is a direct implication of fear.
Point to Jason.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
What gay marriage thread where, and why should we care anyway?
February 16, 2008 - 22:33 ET by tracheostomyGeez, where were all you guys when I already had my_own solution to the gay marriage debate???
Or did you just want to rehash the same old talking points?
Fine with me, but if you really want to get an edge on the other team, I suggest you read the link. I'd be happy to answer any questions or contentions, but just make sure you read the thread first. That's my playbook and it's pretty much airtight. A couple members already stubbed their toe from kicking the tires.
So before you waste your time giving yourself carpal tunnel with the usual arguments, I strongly recommend you check yourself against my answers.
1. So-called "gay marriage" is the most insidious form of gender bias. It also favors an economic bias, and it is patently unconstitutional.
2. Monogamous gays and feminist gays demean their own subculture and their cause by parroting a practice based on an oppressive patriarchal tradition.
3. Gay marriage is itself bias among monogamous gays, because it is not inclusive of the greater GLBT community as a whole.
4. The classical arguments both for and against gay marriage are in and of themselves faulty and/or ultimately futile. There are other solutions.
The issue itself is settled. Gay marriage is itself an oxymoron and is 100% ruled out as a rational goal. All that is required now is distrubution and application of the real solution. The constitutionalists will win the legal battle, but the social liberals and licentious as a whole will win the war*.
As stated above, questions are warmly welcomed, but I must warn you. Don't assume too much and make sure you haven't already been answered.
I don't want anyone to look like a total idiot.
-PJ
*Until Shiloh comes.
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach... "Gay marriage is
February 16, 2008 - 22:37 ET by Clear thinkertrach...
"Gay marriage is itself an oxymoron and is 100% ruled out as a rational goal."
Amen!
Set the GOP back on the right course. http://gopteaparty.com/
Wow...
February 16, 2008 - 23:47 ET by JasonCmisunderstood original post. edited. apologies.
annnnd double post...damn...time for bed
February 16, 2008 - 23:49 ET by JasonCsorry trach
It's cool man. In fact,
February 16, 2008 - 23:53 ET by tracheostomyIt's cool man.
In fact, I didn't even notice it with all the other distraction above.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Yeah, this one blew up
February 16, 2008 - 23:56 ET by JasonCYeah, this one blew up quick. I keep thinking that if I stay up a little later (it's almost midnight on the east coast, don't know where you are) I might get to see RJ accuse me of "raising the specter of homophobia" again. That was good for a laugh; made me feel like a sorcerer or something.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
The End of the RJ
February 20, 2008 - 08:20 ET by LeonWow great thread. Very interesting to watch such a dedicated NB like RJ completely unravel.
It was only a matter of time before someone actually figured out how to use the search function and show that RJ just blabs and blabs and blabs and then denies her own words down the road when they are no longer convenient.
Can we say zero credibility? Let's all say it together!
Man, RJ's husband is going to be angry. Better watch out. He's coming for you all!