Giuliani Panders to Religious Right

Science Blogs ^ | 4/29/07

[ilovew]

That’s hardly the same thing.

[Beagle8U]

“She’s right Beagle. The ignorant and liberals will vote for Rudy over Fred.”

I forgot to count a few liberals that will pick Rooty because of the issues that he is farther left than the Rats.

[TigersEye]

Why not? Do you have something against dogs?

[kcvl]

37 year old freelance writer

co-founder of Michigan Citizens for Science

[ilovew]

I have something against stupidity.

[JCEccles]

I'm willing to hear Giuliani out if he has had an honest change of heart. It's going to be a tough sale to make. Everything he says must be judged in light of how he has lived his own life. There is a huge disconnect there.

I am more inclined to believe that Romney has had an honest change of mind. Unlike Rudy, Romney has lived his full 60 years (and over 35 years of marriage) in full accordance with social conservative principles. Viewed from that perspective, Romney's earlier support for a few social liberal positions rake on the appearance of having been a conviction of the mind--not of the heart.

[TigersEye]

You’re a dog hating bigot.

[TigersEye]

That’s hardly the same thing.

So what is the definiton of "civil union?" Is it only between homosexuals? Is it only for two partners? Where is that defined? What is the basis for "civil union?"

Show us how smart you are and give an intelligent and informed answer to those questions.

[ilovew]

I strongly suspect you couldn’t care less what my response to that question is. You only mean to mock me if I do answer it.

[TigersEye]

Uh, you began by mocking me and then insulting me.

Your response tells me that you have nothing of substance to say. You're a drive-by poster that takes a couple of easy shots and when pressed to back up your bravado you fold like a house of cards.

[ilovew]

No, I began by pointing out that civil unions has nothing to do with animals and you decided to behave like a child, under the deluded impression that you’re amusing.

[TigersEye]

I strongly suspect you couldn’t care less what my response to that question is.

Does the following sound familiar?

You’re all-knowing, right? You can just decide for me what I really mean. #33

[ilovew]

That second post was a continuation of an earlier thread which you obviously weren’t involved in. So, no, it doesn’t sound familiar at all. The other person took a post and decided that I didn’t really mean what I actually said.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Rudy is “land locked” by his record : )

[TigersEye]

No, I made a good point, using facetiousness, that "civil unions" are baseless undefined contrivances.

You can't defend you position so you continue to insult.

[TigersEye]

All that aside you apparently still feel that you can decide for me what I think.

[ilovew]

You want a definition, go to a dictionary. That’s not my problem. And I don’t recall stating a position.

[TigersEye]

In other words you feel free to attack my position but you don’t have one of your own. Is that about right?

[ilovew]

You didn’t have a position either. You had a question that was irrelevant. I pointed out the irrelevance of it and from there, the conversation got dumber.

[TigersEye]

I did have a position or you wouldn't have challenged it. By challenging it you infer that you have an opposing position.

That's not too hard to understand. That's the nature of a discussion forum. It's very much like a discussion in any other medium.

If my question is irrelevant you ought to be able to explain why it's irrelevant. I clarified my position quite crisply in post #51 so my original tongue-in-cheek post shouldn't be confusing you now.