but the gay-homo militant extremist will still vote for him..... 🤔

DrafterX wrote:

http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

An interesting read for those able to make it past two sentences.

victor809 wrote:

You and I have different meaning to the word "interesting".
That web page is fraught with false arguments and much of it is almost unreadable.

I'm not saying I disagree with the sentiment. Simply that this is a poor example of a reasonable discussion, and it could only be described as "interesting" if you're striving to reach a predetermined conclusion while attempting to appear open-minded on the subject.

In other words: Blah.

IMHO

tailgater wrote:

An interesting read for those able to make it past two sentences.

victor809 wrote:

Yes but they still got your IP address logged!

HockeyDad wrote:

You and I have different meaning to the word "interesting".
That web page is fraught with false arguments and much of it is almost unreadable.

I'm not saying I disagree with the sentiment. Simply that this is a poor example of a reasonable discussion, and it could only be described as "interesting" if you're striving to reach a predetermined conclusion while attempting to appear open-minded on the subject.

In other words: Blah.

IMHO

tailgater wrote:

BTW TG, you're probably the only one I would actually believe read it.

victor809 wrote:

I dunno, they explain the issue that he has with CFA (beyond the marriage statement), they validate that it is in no way a legal/first amendment argument (ie, you can't stop someone from saying their opinion) and they point out the one-sidedness of the "why can't you just let us keep hating gays and leave us alone" issue.

What was your problem with the article itself?

victor809 wrote:

Really?

He's belittling his audience here. Basically saying "if you disagree than you didn't read it right"
And it's almost painful to read that paragraph. Like a kid who's lying about doing something, who is babbling.
I'd rather read something by FuzzNJ than this type of communication.

tailgater wrote:

of course it is. the publicity alone is priceless.

when I bring my bbq rub to market imma gonna use a I hate the gay campaign too!

teedubbya wrote:

of course it is. the publicity alone is priceless.

when I bring my bbq rub to market imma gonna use a I hate the gay campaign too!

teedubbya wrote:

Good luck with that!

FWIW...the guy didn't say he hated a thing!🐴

DrMaddVibe wrote:

when I bring my bbq rub to market imma gonna use a I hate the gay campaign too!

teedubbya wrote:

And I didn't say he did. I said I would.

If you are going to be literal learn how to be literal.

teedubbya wrote:

Not in any particular order:

Unreadable:
"Please read carefully. These things have been said before, but not by me, and not all in one place. Please read with an open mind. If you can’t read with an open mind, please leave, take a minute, come back, and try again. If you can’t do that, then please don’t bother. Please read all of the words here, rather than just reading half of the argument and assuming you know what I’m saying. Read these words as they are written. Again, if you don’t want to read my words, then don’t continue."

Really?
He's belittling his audience here. Basically saying "if you disagree than you didn't read it right"
And it's almost painful to read that paragraph. Like a kid who's lying about doing something, who is babbling.
I'd rather read something by FuzzNJ than this type of communication.

I'll hit some other points in a different post so this one doesn't get all jpotts in length.

tailgater wrote: