Is that the case for Boehner? Does he not sign any pledges?

Rightwingprof, since you praise Boehner for his opposition to some gay-related laws, how do you feel about his vote against gay adoption in DC?

I also haven’t heard anyone aside from one person mention his role in No Child Left Behind, and that person apparently only cares that the guy isn’t Ted Kennedy.

We seem to have no expectations at all of Republicans.

Since even dreck like Raj is allowed to smear their stink here, I second Calarato’s motion to shun and ignore the pervert. Anyone who engages it will only be encouraging it. Let it go over to the DEM Underground where it belongs.

By the way raj, my “Communist” remark was meant as a form of put-down known as “hyperbole”.

I know full well what hyperbole means. Unfortunately, one of the things that you may wish to consider is that hyperbole, like sarcasm and “tongue in cheek,” is oftentimes not clear in short messages.

Some of us have come to use HTML-like tags /sarcasm and /tic to indicate the latter two. You may wish to consider adopting an HTML-like tag /hyperbole to indicate that your comment was meant as such.

NB: the backslash, of course, indicates “end of.”

It is possible for some people to be so sick, so loony, that they simply are not worth responding to. And on this dead soldier issue, raj is sticking to his guns as one.

It’s an interesting meta-game he’s playing. It goes as follows.

The game player’s motivation is to confirm his beliefs and feel superior. He tells himself, “My opponents can’t beat me and in fact, won’t even engage me.” He goes to a place where his opponents gather (that’s GayPatriot) and acts in such a distorted, deluded, intellectually dishonest and irresponsible manner that the opponents conclude he isn’t worth engaging.

At that point, he’s “won”. He’s “proven” that his opponents won’t engage him. And, to his mind, he’s then proven as well that his positions must be correct, he must be superior, etc.

Well I say, let raj “win” at that game. Let the baby have his bottle.

I say we should prove to raj that his arguments are so confounding that we won’t even engage them. To sane people, “confounding” here would obviously mean “worthless”, “reprehensible”, “unworthy of effort”. But let raj think it means what he wishes. You can’t heal a loony. They have to choose to be sane, LATER, in their own time and way – or not.

By the way raj, my “Communist” remark was meant as a form of put-down known as “hyperbole”. You don’t seem to recognize it. Do get out that dictionary and have a look, OK love?

More like a typical day…

You apparently still do not understand. As far as I’m concerned, not everyone who is killed in a combat operation is a hero, just because he was killed while engaged in a combat operation. You wish to differ–fine with me. But, as far as I’m concerned, it debases the language. “Hero” is used to characterize people who survive life-threatening illness. “Hero” is used to characterize people who survive natural disasters. “Hero” has been thrown about so as to be virtually worthless: everyone is a hero, ergo nobody is a hero.

In my opinion, the fact that he was killed in a jeep riding into a combat zone does not make him a hero. My father was shot down while on a bombing raid over Germany during WWII. He survived and suffered a couple of years in a German POW camp. But the fact that he was shot down–and injured in the process–doesn’t make him a hero. Should he not have done what he did? Definitely not. But that didn’t make him a hero.

But did you listen? No. It’s a sad, sad day when the GayLeft can’t admit their mistakes and move on.

VdaK nailed you to the wall, raj baby.

Oh… and quoting Robert Heinlein raj baby? Gheez, dude, that guy is so 1970’s fag paste you forgot he wasn’t relevant anymore? Or did you discover his homoerotic writings whilst under the sheets with the flashlight and you can’t move on from that cauterizing moment in time either? Heinlein, cryin out loud. What’s next? Another wiki cite? LOL

It would be a mistake to paraphrase what I post through your filter. If you wish to comment on one of my comments, why don’t you comment on it directly? Instead of obliquely?

It is a fair assumption.

I’ll repeat:

PATRIOT, n.
One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors

–Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s dictionary.

Parse it

You tell me. Saddam had not declared war on the US–unlike Germany at the entrance of the US into WWII. And as has been shown despite Colon Powell’s dog&pony show at the UN Security Council–where he presented pictures of supposed Iraqi WoMDs, for which, it was subsequently discovered, there was no evidence. There was no evidence that Saddam presented any threat to the United States. It strikes me that if any other countries believed that Saddam presented a threat to them, they could have taken him out with a well-placed missile. Israel has shown that they are well capable of doing so. Would I have cared? Not really.

- Marine Staff Sergeant Dan Clay, who was killed last year fighting in Fallujah, in a letter to his family.

I assume that Raj thinks that this man was not heroic but stupid. Is that a fair assumption?

You may not consider “Republican” synonymous with “conservative,” but I suspect that most voters would. I consider “Republican” to be synonymous with “borrow&spend liberal” from a fiscal standpoint. And largely conservative from a social standpoint–the Repubicans at the national level–and at most state levels–largely appear to have let the conservative christian “tail” wag the national “dog” on social (dare I say it? anti-social) issues.

Now, let’s cut to the chase. It is the “social” issues that are driving the bias crimes laws. Republicans have been in power for a number of years, but have made no effort to repeal existing bias crimes laws. If and when they do, I’ll sit up and listen. Until they do, their bitching&moaning about them when it is proposed to add “sexual orientation” as a covered category doesn’t mean a whole lot to me.

BTW, it would be something of a mistake to preach to me about “logical fallacy.” Deductive logic depends on an agreement by all parties involved as to the veracity of the premises. As far as I’m concerned, premises are based on evidence, but others apparently disagree. Unless all parties agree to the evidence, deductive logic is pretty much useless.

Robert Heinlein–science fiction writer–famously wrote once something to the effect that you can’t learn something new from deductive logic that you don’t already know:

Beware of the “Black Swan” fallacy. Deductive logic is tautological; there is no way to get a new truth out of it, and it manipulates false statements as readily as true ones. If you fail to remember this, it can trip you — with perfect logic. The designers of the earliest computers called this the “Gigo Law,” i.e., “Garbage in, garbage out.”
Inductive logic is much more difficult — but can produce new truths.

Pretty much true.