Are you that narrow-minded?
Posted By: sm on 2009-06-02
In Reply to: That's your opinion - not fact - see message - just me
Are you so stuck on being "anti-religious" or amti-Christian or whatever that you don't realize everyone that opposes abortion is not a Christian?
Why is it if someone opposes abortion they MUST be Christian. If someone opposes abortion that has no religious beliefs, what do you call them? Maybe they just know murder when they see it?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
only the conservative, narrow-minded ones!
nm
That is the MOST narrow-minded post....
I have seen here. Got a mirror handy? :-)
narrow minded? yup that is the O lovers
P.S. - last time someone was called stupid they were banned.
You don't like what I have to say fine. Maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself. No need to be rude - oh wait! Your an O lover. Guess you do feel you have the right to be rude.
As Ben Franklin said, which fits perfectly about your post, .... "Better to keep silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".
More like narrow minded people
Without resorting to throwing out some silly retort.
Who says your way is the right way? That is why we live in AMERICA - we are FREE to make our own choices. It is not up to the government to watch your children. That is YOUR job. Their job is to uphold the Constitution OF the people BY the people...lest you forget!
Nor I with the cloistered and narrow-minded.
>>>>
No, I challenge you to show me mean, narrow minded,
shallow, pure hatred from the reps to the dems on this board.
I think you libbies have it won down pat. Same on other boards, not just this one.
And for that matter, show me anywhere, that same degree of "hatred" toward Obama, that is now being shown to Gov. Palin.
I don't mean mere dislike, or spoof of his lack of anything, either. I mean the hatred.
Republicans don't act that way. But if they have, please give me an example, please.
That is so narrow-minded and not true. You are so judgemental (sm)
apparently, you are the only non-racist, good person in the United States, aren't you? Take yourself off your pedestal. Many of us are just as kind-hearted and see race as a nonissue as you claim to be. Get off your high horse.
You've got to be kidding! How narrow-minded
nm
Must have. Guess my scope was too narrow.
Besides that, while comparing one to the other, some folks might make a few distinctions between the 2. Studds was openly gay US federal level politician, a seat he held for 24 years. In 1973 he had a legal, consensual relationship/affair with a 17-year-old minor congressional page (age of consent being 17), Dean T. Hara, who became his partner for life and who he later MARRIED in 2004 Evidently, they had to wait for gay marriage to become legal, or would have married much earlier. Hara had clearly stated "knew exactly what he was doing" when he had the affair with Studds. Since the act was legal, no charges were filed and Studds received a congressional censure for inappropriately engaging in a relationship with a subordinate, after which he was re-elected to 6 consecutive terms. Studds worked consistently for same-sex marriage, AIDS funding and civil rights for gays and lesbians. His behavior was entirely consistent with his politics. Studds was no hypocrite. He died 2 short years after he was finally allowed to marry the love of his life.
Fast forward to the current century. Mark Foley one of the foremost opponents of child porn, worked on behalf of missing and exploited children and worked to outlaw web sites featuring sexually explicit images of preteen children, which he considered as a "fix for pedophiles." He also worked for tougher sex offender laws. Upstanding guy, yes?
Enter the creep factor. Behind the scene, he was sending solicitous e-mails and IMs to former teenage male congressional pages OVER A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. To his credit, I suppose, in at least 2 cases, he waited until after the boys turned 18 and 21 respectively, before having sex with them. He sent 5 emails to a former 16-year-old page in 2004, when among other things he requested the minor send his photo and remarked about the great physical attributes of another underage page to him. He reported this to a senior official and said he had been warned about other female pages who had been "hit on."
In 2002, he invited a 17-year-old over for oral sex, an offer the youth declined. He had asked another for a photo of his erect penis. That guy knew 4 or 5 other pages who had received similar sexually explicit emails. There were at least another half-dozen or so pages who received the sexually explicit IMs.
There's more, but it is pretty sordid and would be quite time-consuming to get into on this forum. Suffice to say that these "advances" were unwanted and unsolicited. They occurred over a decade with so many pages one loses count and were reflective of a pattern of sick, sick behavior. There was the spectre of stalking underpinning the episodes. All of this was occurring while the HYPOCRITE was doing the above described "good works" legislation.
Studds and Foley were both indiscrete, to be sure, but beyond that, there is no real comparison. Call me crazy here, but somehow, I do not see these 2 behaviors as being the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Must have. Guess my scope was too narrow.
Besides that, while comparing one to the other, some folks might make a few distinctions between the 2. Studds was openly gay US federal level politician, a seat he held for 24 years. In 1973 he had a legal, consensual relationship/affair with a 17-year-old minor congressional page (age of consent being 17), Dean T. Hara, who became his partner for life and who he later MARRIED in 2004 Evidently, they had to wait for gay marriage to become legal, or would have married much earlier. Hara had clearly stated "knew exactly what he was doing" when he had the affair with Studds. Since the act was legal, no charges were filed and Studds received a congressional censure for inappropriately engaging in a relationship with a subordinate, after which he was re-elected to 6 consecutive terms. Studds worked consistently for same-sex marriage, AIDS funding and civil rights for gays and lesbians. His behavior was entirely consistent with his politics. Studds was no hypocrite. He died 2 short years after he was finally allowed to marry the love of his life.
Fast forward to the current century. Mark Foley one of the foremost opponents of child porn, worked on behalf of missing and exploited children and worked to outlaw web sites featuring sexually explicit images of preteen children, which he considered as a "fix for pedophiles." He also worked for tougher sex offender laws. Upstanding guy, yes?
Enter the creep factor. Behind the scene, he was sending solicitous e-mails and IMs to former teenage male congressional pages OVER A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. To his credit, I suppose, in at least 2 cases, he waited until after the boys turned 18 and 21 respectively, before having sex with them. He sent 5 emails to a former 16-year-old page in 2004, when among other things he requested the minor send his photo and remarked about the great physical attributes of another underage page to him. He reported this to a senior official and said he had been warned about other female pages who had been "hit on."
In 2002, he invited a 17-year-old over for oral sex, an offer the youth declined. He had asked another for a photo of his erect penis. That guy knew 4 or 5 other pages who had received similar sexually explicit emails. There were at least another half-dozen or so pages who received the sexually explicit IMs.
There's more, but it is pretty sordid and would be quite time-consuming to get into on this forum. Suffice to say that these "advances" were unwanted and unsolicited. They occurred over a decade with so many pages one loses count and were reflective of a pattern of sick, sick behavior. There was the spectre of stalking underpinning the episodes. All of this was occurring while the HYPOCRITE was doing the above described "good works" legislation.
Studds and Foley were both indiscrete, to be sure, but beyond that, there is no real comparison. Call me crazy here, but somehow, I do not see these 2 behaviors as being the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Perhaps your narrow world, not mine.
Trying to figure out exactly what a community organizer does (besides having dinner with terrorists, listening to - but never actually hearing - hate speech in church, rallying fraudulent votes, etc.).
Perhaps you could enighten me, o wise one?
It doesn't narrow our view of the world,
it expands it.
Isn't google wonderful? For expanding your narrow scope? sm
I also remember them comparing the two a while back, especially since Studds passed away recently. I guess it does depend on whose imagination you're stretching, doesn't it.
Nice of you to be so graphic about it.
Your views are so narrow. Blind religious fanatacism
Sad.
simple minded? Nah.
Nah, the simple minded and hateful are on the conservative board..you got the wrong board..sorry, sweet cakes..
I am open minded
but I'm also not gullible to anything that floats down the river either.
If you are as open-minded as you say you are
why does a countdown that millions of people are doing, whether its openly on a forum, or under their breath, nauseate you so much? Just like the 10-paragraph diatribe above someone launched in reply to the 2930 post, me thinks you doest protest too much. I mean, really, what is the harm in someone being excited and happy at the idea of a changing of the guard?
Wow, you don't even know me and you have labeled me. How fair-minded of you.
Can you even see how silly you are? Probably not.
You aren't even open-minded enough to think about this...
He has already said he wants to practice redistribution of wealth (tax oil companies and give it back to people who did not earn it). That is Marxist theory. And now we have son of Alinsky high-fiving him in the Boston Globe. I am seeing stuff that I am still confirming that he taught the Alinsky theory. One thing alone, maybe not so alarming...but the preponderance of evidence....the jury is still out, but it does not look good.
comment from your like-minded friend
You know there are some who believe that this is not like the Great Depression, not like the civil war (with the hyperinflation) but actually more like the revolutionary war because of the violations of our constitution. I think it will be very interesting to see how many people will want to preserve it, sacrifice to preserve it, once they realize how threatened it is.
Yes, that is close minded' and 'ignorant'..
Don't you see?
Typical closed-minded, my-way-or-the-highway,
(which means, "Waste of Our Time").
This poster is obviously simple minded and likes to
stir up trouble. Probably has never voted.
I hope you are not that small minded. You may quit your job
any time you like and apply for welfare and see if you get it. Maybe, Bush will let you draw it now.
Actually, I find YOUR post closed-minded
nm
Only the open minded and forward thinking
There isn't anything he can do about narrow-minded, self-righteous divisionists. Obama has won over the educated majority of the entire world.
Great Britain has been so "open minded" they now
have an out of control Muslim population. The neighborhoods have become so violent, the police won't even venture into the neighborhoods! They're trying to run the european contry.... GB is now trying to curtail anymore Muslims from coming into the country and that is why the "black list" started in the first place. I say GOOD FOR THEM! They are sick and tired of others trying to control their govt and people....same thing is happening in this country!
My mistake...I thought you only tolerated like-minded people....
hence Berkeley.
LOL! Ain't that the truth! "Fair minded"..."well-researched"...
I haven't seen one scintilla of anything that could properly be called 'research' in any of Just Terribly Bad Breath's posts.
Question....you tout yourself as open-minded and tolerant....
when are you going to start posting as such? Just curious. Not exactly tolerant and open-minded to make blanket statements about "pubs" when you certainly cannot POSSIBLY know or have talked to every single registered Republican in this country. And how do you know what political affiliation someone is? Do you decide based on how they feel about Barry from Chicago? I myself am registered Independent, and to quote from a post I have seen on this board before but which sums it up...because you have to register as something in this country to vote. I was a Republican once, but they have become Democrats lite. Yes, my politics would be considered conservative. I don't believe the Constitution is a "living" document. I believe is fine as the founders wrote it and not as the ACLU would like it to be re-written. I believe in God. I believe in a free country. I believe in capitalism. I believe in more power at the state level than the federal government level. To name a few. I certainly don't believe in socialism, in making people dependent upon the government for their every need. I believe in hard work as a means to bettering your situation, not handouts from the government paid for on the backs of those willing to work hard. To name just a few. What do YOU believe in besides Barry from Chicago?
Glad to see you are so open-minded and tolerant of diversity, as your party proclaims.
I am not set in my ways, I have embrace some of the liberal notions although not enough to vote that way say far, and welcome INTELLIGENT debate and discussion. And I'm suppose to be from the party of intolerance and racism. I think you should reread some of your posts and see who is intolerant. I don't come here to poke fun at anybody on either side, I come here because I don't get much out of just agreeing with everybody, I like to hear different ideas and to debate the issues. But, I guess I could find another liberal board where some mature people hang out and I might be welcome to do that, instead of just reading stupid childish jokes and laughing with each other.
|
