Republican Group Headed by Pres. Gerald Ford and VP Daughter Mary Cheney asks Santorum to Apologize

National Journal's Early Bird and NY Times ^ | April 24, 2003 | Mark Rodeffer

[eleni121]

Is that what they teach you at OU? How to avoid, procrastinate, fixate, and generally fail in any minimum standrads of logical thought?

As I said to you before, take a logic class. You need it.

[Buckeye Bomber]

1) I would have thought that mathematical analysis through game theory is somewhat logical. Or perhaps the scientific method classes I've taken.

2) I go to OSU, or The Ohio State University as it is formally known. I am a Buckeye, not a Bobcat (or Sooner I suppose).

3) I think they're known as minimum standards, not standrads.

4) By picking apart your grammar and spelling, I am merely trying to make the point that this is a freaking bulletin board, not a formal debate setting, and as such is not subject to full editing. You keep opening cans of worms, trying to throw them at me, and when I throw them back, you ask how I could be so stupid as to open that can of worms.

5) What questions have I avoided? Every time I ask a question, you move on and insult something else associated with me, usually in a poorly phrased way.

6) I posted the fallacies of logic to perhaps suggest the way to convince me of your opinion. One tip: insulting me won't make me any more receptive to your ideas.

[Buckeye Bomber]

That wouldn't be a meaningful debate if I debated the way you told me to do so. That'd be a self-congratulation session. "Wow, we are so right. I can't believe how right we are in every way." That's what's known as groupthink in the formal literature.

In groupthink, members of a team or other group (such as a political party) spend all their time talking about how great they are so as to not rock the boat of good feelings. Meanwhile, they all avoid the negative subjects so as to not offend the other members of the team, and the negative subjects sneak up on the team and bite them in the butt. So you see, by discussing the many sides of this issue, rather than just patting you on the back and complaining about the other side, I'm trying to improve the health of our side, not destroy our side.

Discussion is healthy. That's why this is called a forum, and not a podium.

[eleni121]

You still can't bring yourself to even make the attempt to understand the privacy issue.

SO what the heck are you spending time doing on this forum?

[eleni121]

I just think strategically speak

OOPS...you don't even know the meaning of strategically speaking...

[Buckeye Bomber]

See, the difference is that I was being facetious with the whole grammar thing. If you read what I posted and looked for the meaning of the words, you might have guessed that. Didn't you notice that in my last post. I started checking your grammar and spelling because you suggested that I needed a remedial reading and writing class. As I said previously, grammar and spelling is of minimal importance on a bulletin board. If you looked for meaning, that's the important thing.

I don't believe the privacy issue is relevant to this matter. I believe the 14th amendment protections are. You obviously disagree, but come on, do you need to go round and round on this?

[eleni121]

The 14th Amendment says nothing about protecting sodomy. IN addition to learning to write are you now spinning...? What is it exactly you do for a living? Do you work for the Ditsy Chicks?

[pgyanke]

I gave you some credit in our earlier discussion... too much credit. You're as thick as a Wendy's frosty and not as appetizing.

If you will reread the post to which you are replying, you will see that I am encouraging a debate on the issues. What I don't encourage nor desire is one side of the debate demanding an apology for perceived wrongs and our side demanding U.S. Senators not take on controversial issues for fear of offending someone.

I've read enough of you on this thread... your repeated aggrieved status, your "tattling" to the moderator at every perceived wrong and your incessant whining about how this issue isn't about what it's about. Grow up and learn to participate in a heated debate.

[pgyanke]

I don't believe the privacy issue is relevant to this matter.

Santorum: "It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution..."

I've lost a lot of respect for you in your last several posts. It's clear you are unteachable. Regardless of the facts in front of your face, you continue to hold onto your preconceived and erroneous opinions. As you can see in the excerpt above...previously posted for you to read...the issue IS the supposed right to privacy.

I'm tired of the verbal Merry-go-Round. Goodnight.

[KingNo155]

Bahhhhhhhhhhh

[Shethink13]

(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.

This simply says "a person". It does not say "homosexual person". The law applies equally to everyone. I am a married, heterosexual woman but if I engage in deviate sexual intercourse with another female I would be violating this law.

The fact that someone who has a homosexual orientation is more likely to be in violation of the law is irrelevant.

If we followed your line of reasoning, all laws that are violated disproportionately by poor, fatherless young men would be unconstitutional.

[Qwerty]

"All the pushing the gay agenda in the public schools threads. It's disgusting. They can't even have kids."

Hope you weren't including me in that, though you probably were.

At any rate, we can and do have kids. Just to clarify.

[RAT Patrol]

All your kids were attained the natural way, too -- heterosexually. So, to claim that gays have children too is a distortion of the truth. They might raise children too, but they do not have children too.

Qwerty, the only thing that you've ever said that alarmed me was your comment that gays should be able to adopt children. Children are vulnerable, impressionable, and needy. They should not be lab rats in social experiments. If a child is the natural child of a gay parent (again...see above), then that's one thing, but handing over children to gays just because they want their kids and unnatural sex life too is another. As sad as it is, I would not be quick to separate a natural child from his natural parent. On the other hand, it is appalling when people like Rosie O'Donnell adopt a kid and tell that child that he has two mommies when he asks "Where's Daddy?"

[harpo11]

Your thoughtful words remind me of the Trent Lott episode becoming the raging issue so soon after President George Bush made mid-term election history after not only maintaining the Republican majority in the House of Representatives as well as gaining seats but also winning seats in the Senate to gain the majority.

You are so right, the democrats nit pick away like a bunch of termites in the hopes of bringing down the popularity of our President.

[Qwerty]

"All your kids were attained the natural way, too -- heterosexually."

I have no kids. I will eventually have them through "heterosexual" means. That won't change my sexuality.

"So, to claim that gays have children too is a distortion of the truth."

They don't sexually create them together. I don't think that saying that gays and lesbians have children was EVER meant to fool anyone into thinking that it occurred between two lesbians or two gay men.

Do you think it is a statement made intentionally to fool people into thinking we do?

"Qwerty, the only thing that you've ever said that alarmed me was your comment that gays should be able to adopt children."

I realize there are a lot of strong feelings on the subject.. I respect your opinion and I'm glad that it comes from wanting the best for children.

Still, there are many children who need to be adopted and if gays and lesbians are willing and able to take them in, then I feel it is best for most children. Obviously, it will depend on the individuals.