Bob with Alan Colmes

[Shadowx]

There is no Shadowx

There is no Shadowx

Tao said
"Look, I'm no fan of Alan Colmes, after all, he's on Fox, but if you gotta shove words in his mouth to make your point, why bother linking the interview? That's dishonest."

What's wrong with dishonesty?

Tao said,
"Shadowx; "hmm..I see my neighbor's wife is being raped..well, I can't help everyone who is being raped right now, so...it would be wrong for me to help her..."

"I guess he wouldn't mind this attitude either if it was another liberal looking out their window at his wife..."

taoist;
"That's not a real quote, either. Oh well, it's got its fans regardless, carry on."

Nothing is real, I thought you already knew this?

I am mocking his reasoning, it's pure stupidity.
It is the liberal fall back position when you talk about the brutality of saddem and his sons. They say yeah that was wrong, BUT we can't help everyone so...


Shadowx

 

[taoist]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Vote for you for what?

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=11174

 

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by taoist
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=11174

It's a tie.

 

[taoist]

Originally posted by wholearmor
It's a tie.

:thumb:

 

[BillyBob]

Bob who?

 

[smothers]

Bob lost. He could not stear the debate by calling his opposition a fool, placing him on hold or refusing to continue until the liberal addressed an idiotic point that wasn't germain to the origional topic.
Alan held his own by refusing to validate Bob's over-general propositions. I for one thoroughly enjoyed Bob getting his clock cleaned.

 

[Jukia]

Enyart tried to make an argument that the government should get involved when people violate a contract, the marriage contract especially. Seems to me that if you buy the idea of marriage as a contract, then defaulting on a contract should just be dealt with in a civil proceeding not a criminal one. Lots of people default on their contractual obligations for all sorts of reasons--you simply go to court on the civil side to deal with it.

And his comment about when the US should take unilateral action was interesting. We should do right "when we can do it and when it is in our interest to do it". China is too big, we can't bully China so we won't do that, but Iraq is a different story. A bit hypocritical?

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Jukia
And his comment about when the US should take unilateral action was interesting. We should do right "when we can do it and when it is in our interest to do it". China is too big, we can't bully China so we won't do that, but Iraq is a different story. A bit hypocritical?

Spoken like a true coward: "I'll do right when I don't have to worry about my opponent handing me my head."

Of course, that could be interpreted as choosing one's battles wisely; there's no point in engaging the enemy if you know he's going to walk all over you...:chuckle:

 

[Palto]

It appeared to me that Alan Colmes was trying to cling to the idea that the result of our complacency is not as important as allowing man to pursue his own evil path. He took offense to Bob's description of the Liberal mindset because it made the ideology appear evil. In order for Alan to accept Bob's description would mean that he is without heart. It would have been interesting to ask Alan how he felt about judging others. He seemed to hold that Jesus did/does not judge. Alan openly admitted that he had little if any faith in GOD, so I would assume that his worldview would be based on secularity. As Bob had stated, Alan had no "moral clarity." While I can not see Alan admit to such an assertion, since GOD is the source of all true morality, I see no way that Alan could have assimilated it in his life on his own. I think the trick would have been to try to get Alan to see how not acting on the offensive behavior of Sadam was actually showing less love than allowing him to continue his evil ways, not only to the Iraqi people, but also to Sadam himself. The problem was, as I saw it, that due to limited time and the offense that Alan felt from Bob's words, nothing was really discussed, including Alan's principles for why he approaches Liberalism as he does. Since Alan reiterated the same point multiple times without allowing comment during the diatribe, I didn't see wisdom imparted on either side allowing for intelligent interaction. It appeared to be disjointed discussion.

Palto

 

[Jefferson]

Alan Colmes believes that any government that criminalizes adultery is tyranical.

Therefore, Alan Colmes believes the U.S. government in the 1950's was tyranical.

Whatever you say Alan :kookoo:

 

[drRansom]

Yeah, we all know that Colmes is a flaming liberal. Granted. But....

...I actually have video tape of Hannity saying that microchips implanted under the skin is a good thing and that he was all for it. Typical neocon...

:devil:

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by drRansom
...I actually have video tape of Hannity saying that microchips implanted under the skin is a good thing and that he was all for it. Typical neocon...

:devil:

Oh, I'm sure that Good Christians™ would be exempt; Hannity would like to see it done to the Filthy Atheists™ and other would-be terrorists...:chuckle: