Skip

Thou shalt not bear false witness...
July 20, 2005 11:55 AM   Subscribe

Republican to Evangelical to English via Babylonfish. What Bush said about Supreme Court nominee Bob Roberts John Roberts:
"In my meetings with Judge Roberts, I have been deeply impressed. He's a man of extraordinary accomplishment and ability. He has a good heart. He has the qualities Americans expect in a judge: experience, wisdom, fairness, and civility. He has profound respect for the rule of law and for the liberties guaranteed to every citizen. He will strictly apply the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench....He's also a man of character who loves his country and his family."
What it meant to conservative fundamentalist Christians (in comments):
posted by rzklkng (72 comments total)

 
What it meant to conservative fundamentalist Christians:
His "good heart" is reflective of the themes discussed in the book "Shaped by God" as discussed in "The Purpose Driven Life". A relavent biblical passage might be Luke 8:15, "But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience." This might speak to conservatives who's long term goals are the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, Affirmative Action, and other liberal bastions.

The phrase "rule of law" speaks to the specific issue of the separation of church and state, namely that actions supressing the expression of religion in the public sphere are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and as such are groundless. In a strict legal and political interpretation, ROL means that those who make the law are bound by it. It's also analogous to the spreading of democracy. From a Christian viewpoint, we are ruled by law, not men, and all law is given from the Creator.

The phrase "liberties guaranteed to every person" speaks of the work done by the Supreme Court in the period after 1937 (hint, FDR). A great number of "rights" as established by court rulings are not absolute, as they are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. First and foremost is the "right to privacy", through which flows the right to consenual sex, premarital sex, the unconstitutionality of "deviant sex acts", and of course abortion. Two prominent critics of the right to privacy and it's hazards in recent events include Rick Santorum and Tom Delay. Collateral damage in this argument includes Affirmative Action, Social Security, Civil Rights, Environmental Protections, Separation of Church and State, HIPAA, and the American with Disabilities Act. This phrase, in it's absolute extreme, can best be demonstrated in the the theory of Constitutional Restoration. It also has wide ranging implications for the innovations at the state and local level that are being "constructed" in state constitutions that provide rights not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution, which will come into clear conflict with the traditional libertarian view of "states right" and the historical concept of Federalism.

The fragment "strictly apply the Constitution and laws" is reflective of previously refered to conservative "hot button issues", and is and of itself loosely interprative, requiring courts to "interpret" the intention of the founding fathers, based solely on an incomplete historical record from 214 years ago. Specifically, it exposes the rift between Jefferson/Adams and Hamilton, with the outcome being In its extreme, all questions of Constitutionality must be viewed from the point of view (and legally) of 1791, negated the last two centuries of rulings and precedents, as well as the the belief that the Constitution is a living, breathing document. This, frankly, has the greatest implications for America, as it will freeze us legally on the Constitutional level in the 18th Century, ignoring the fundamental changes in our society, world events, and the evolution of man in their deliberations and findings. This is directly analagous to Conservative Christians "freezing" of their interpretation of the bible, providing a literal and absolute set of rules and order.

What does all this means to America? Who knows at this point?

For all we know, we could have a radical christian fundamentalist sleeper cell being assembled on the high court. At the same time, with only two years on the bench, there is insufficient information to judge his judicial character. By all accounts, he seems to be very bright and a judicial intellectual as opposed to an ideologue. Let the games begin...
posted by rzklkng at 11:58 AM on July 20, 2005


Very good interpretation of the fundy code words!
posted by nofundy at 12:01 PM on July 20, 2005


Wouldn't this have been better as a comment in the previous post?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:02 PM on July 20, 2005


monju_bosatu, I searched for "code", "secret decoder ring", and "enigma", and was satisfied that this would be a relavent new topic.
posted by rzklkng at 12:04 PM on July 20, 2005


It is a different take on most of the stuff I've heard or read. Interesting.
posted by chowder at 12:11 PM on July 20, 2005




How is it a new topic? There's an active discussion going on about Robert's nomination in the other thread.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:14 PM on July 20, 2005


How is it that the crazy Christians are all more stupider than us liberals but get to have cool secret codes?
posted by billysumday at 12:14 PM on July 20, 2005


How is it that crazy conservative Christians are all more stupider than liberals but yet get to have cool secret codes?

(you took the words out of my mouth, billysumbday, kind of).
posted by tomplus2 at 12:19 PM on July 20, 2005


monju, it's a might bit too long and would probably be regarded as post whoring. I know MeFi isn't about having an entire screen of FPPs on the same topic, but this speaks more to a president tailoring the near-future of the *ahem* United States of America based on the theological beliefs of a minority of the people (Yes, we know sixty-something percent of Americans claim to be Christians, but ONLY 26% of all Americans are evangelicals.)
posted by rzklkng at 12:24 PM on July 20, 2005


It is a lot easier to create the strawman to burn down if you can just make the other person's statments mean whatever would be best for you in your demonization.
posted by dios at 12:26 PM on July 20, 2005


Oh dios, this is not accidental and you know it. 404 Strawman not found. Why else were conservative folk specifically placated with assurances that it was not going to be Gonzalez and that Bush specifically spoke to the Southern Baptist Convention this week to tell them he would "work hard to ban gay marriage and abortion" and that he shared their values, via a radical leftist magazine.
posted by rzklkng at 12:30 PM on July 20, 2005


I am with monju_bosatsu. The link to the dictionary alone would have probably been a good FPP.

What you turned it into should be in the other thread.
posted by mlis at 12:32 PM on July 20, 2005


Matt added a feature to Metafilter where you can flag posts as double-posts. That way you don't have to post off topic comments like this one. It's fucking amazing. Shame people don't use it.
posted by chunking express at 12:35 PM on July 20, 2005


George Bush: "I am going to take my dog for a walk."

Rzklkng: "What Bush is really saying here conservative Christians is that he wants to kill all homos and commies, poison the environment by specifically spilling his oil on the seals, eat babies, and return us to the time of Boethius. That is what that phrase is code for."

Stellar. Maybe he meant the exact things he said. Nah! It's easier if we can define his comments.

And civil discourse takes another great leap forward....
posted by dios at 12:44 PM on July 20, 2005


Dios, does the right have a great amount of message discipline, has Bush personally spoken to the SBC to assuage them of his choice, was info "leaked" to reassure them that it would not be Gonzalez, and is there any documented history as to the Administration using careful parsing of phrases and terminology to advance their points while not tipping their hand?
posted by rzklkng at 12:47 PM on July 20, 2005


chunking express, but there's a lot less satisfaction in notifying Matt about the offense and alot more satisfaction in pissing in the thread. Or so I've noticed. Maybe if, upon flagging and returning to the thread, the offending comment or post pulsed menacingly.

But until that happens, there will be pissing and parsing.
posted by fenriq at 12:49 PM on July 20, 2005


Great post.

Bush does speak in code, a lot. I remember during the debates when he brought up the Dredd Scott case, which after some searching on the internet I found was an important case for those who want to overturn Roe.

It's amazing he's known for being so straightfoward when clearly he's not. If he's against Roe, he should just say that. If he's only going to appoint judges that would overturn Roe, he should just say that.

This is post is about a lot of things, Bush's codes, Rule of law, and how that relates to his recent Supreme Court selection.
posted by xammerboy at 12:58 PM on July 20, 2005


fenriq, how am I flagging your post? I can't successfully parse your language to get the secret meaning?
posted by rzklkng at 12:59 PM on July 20, 2005


rzklkng, I posted that too quickly, I wasn't saying you were flagging my post. I was saying that people piss in the threads because its most satisfying than flagging and moving on, if there were some pulsing throb when you came back from flagging a post then maybe that would be a more satisfying result.

As it is, people like to make their dissatisfaction known, by pissing in the threads. Which is how we get into these derails.

I don't think the post is bad at all. This Roberts guy is brand new to me and I'm happy to learn as much about his as I can.
posted by fenriq at 1:06 PM on July 20, 2005


I know that *joshing*. I couldn't figure out if you were a true patriot with a good heart or an evil doer.
posted by rzklkng at 1:07 PM on July 20, 2005


I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't wait to own slaves in a few years.
posted by wakko at 1:12 PM on July 20, 2005


As everyone knows, all evangelicals read the same books, have the same thoughts, and march in lockstep with one another. That is why they are so successful; it's a conspiracy! I heard that they also hoard gold and sacrifice children to their horned god too. Do evangelicals have hooked noses? I wouldn't know because I have never had the misfortune of meeting one.

Is anybody surprised that a conservative president who relies on the religious right for much of his support is now pandering to them with his supreme court choice? Do you really need a lexicon to figure out this president's positions?

I am shocked! shocked! How dare he pick a justice who shares his politico-legal views!
posted by mokujin at 1:15 PM on July 20, 2005


...there will be pissing and parsing.
but, sadly, no pulsing.
posted by Floydd at 1:18 PM on July 20, 2005


Maybe he meant the exact things he said.

He never has yet, which is why I've abandoned the Republicans, and continually urge all my friends and family to do likewise.

They're listening.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:20 PM on July 20, 2005


I thought that "babylonfish" was funny. Also wakko's comment. I also thought that Bush's weird statement about OB/GYNs not being allowed to "practice their love" on women was supposed to have made some shred of sense when run through a Holy Decoder, but this dictionary is not helping elucidate so far.
posted by obloquy at 1:28 PM on July 20, 2005


Since I'm the only one discussing the actual post & link anyway, here's what else I think is funny:
United Nations
1. A world government made up of foreigners bent on imposing its will on sovereign nations primarily by seeking to inhibit the United States from imposing its good will on sovereign nations.
That and the "Meet Republican Singles" google ad.
posted by obloquy at 1:33 PM on July 20, 2005


What one person calls fundy code words, I call boilerplate. It's the same bullshit Bush always says when he doesn't really know what to say. He probably read it off the crib sheet Rove taped to his jacket sleeve.
posted by fungible at 1:36 PM on July 20, 2005


Good point, obloquy, maybe all of the Dubyaisms were actually secret messages?
posted by rzklkng at 1:49 PM on July 20, 2005


Code word: "States Rights"
posted by matteo at 1:49 PM on July 20, 2005


" How is it that crazy conservative Christians are all more stupider than liberals but yet get to have cool secret codes?"

wtf? they have had secret codes for years now, haven't you seen that little fish on the back of their cars????? Do you even know what those little fish are trying to say??? It's in greek, but since I'm like totally learned in classical greek, I'll tell you. It's IKTHUS which means Boney Fish (well sorta - osteichthyes). They worship fish bones and dolphin humpin' and not just any dolphin humpin, but god fearin' dolphin humpin...and that has secret codes too...but I've not cracked that yet.
posted by Hands of Manos at 1:52 PM on July 20, 2005


matteo, it's a good thing those dixiecrats either died, got voted out of office, or became Republicans. Come to think of it, your analogy is quite similar to that of calling today's Republicans "conservatives".
posted by rzklkng at 1:56 PM on July 20, 2005


I also thought that Bush's weird statement about OB/GYNs not being allowed to "practice their love" on women was supposed to have made some shred of sense when run through a Holy Decoder, but this dictionary is not helping elucidate so far.

Oh come on. Granted it's a really bad turn of phrase, and a president should do much better, but why pretend to not understand what he meant, or that he meant something dirty? It's not like there's a shortage of things to be upset or confused about - why make them up?
posted by freebird at 2:12 PM on July 20, 2005


Was no one posting here today subjected to post-modern writers in college? Everything can be decoded: the words you say, the style of your hair, the color of your tie, the way you pick your nose ... c'mon ... the personal is political ... surely we've heard that before?

I like the post [and do think that it deserves to be seperate from the ongoing discussion about the court] if only to ponder what the new codes are for the political right.
posted by kanewai at 2:22 PM on July 20, 2005


I dunno if this is on topic or not, but can someone (dios, maybe?) explain to me why people think that there is no right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution? I think the 4th amendment is pretty clear and specific.
posted by jlub at 2:38 PM on July 20, 2005


Re: "rule of law" decoding - reverting to the constitution won't get rid of that pesky first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (I feel like I can't repeat that enough these days.) The 4th amendment is also fairly clear. Re: "state's rights" - Well, thank goodness we don't have to worry about that anymore now that the supreme court effectively granted congress jurisdiction over all law, federal and state.
posted by YurikoKinje at 3:07 PM on July 20, 2005


My understanding of the "strict constructionist" argument is that the fourth amendment right to privacy should be understood to apply only to protection of citizens against government intrusion on their property. They claim that a right to privacy of the individual was created ex nihilo by judicial activists so that abhorrent practices like gay sex, drug use, and abortion could be justified as civil liberties. And they usually claim that the framers of the constitution intended for majority opinion in each state to be the deciding factor of what liberties individuals may be entitled to.

Here's an interview with Robert Bork that seems to lay out the conservative argument against privacy pretty well. Can't say for sure though because I had to vomit before finishing it.
posted by eatitlive at 3:10 PM on July 20, 2005


The FPP is strawman B.S.

Also, in the previous post, I didn't feel like I may have to defend myself against someone who said I was "more stupider."
posted by rush at 3:10 PM on July 20, 2005


Great post. Enjoyed it thoroughly, especially the first comment. Well done.

Thanks for the Bork link. He didn't make me vomit until the anti-homo stuff at the end.

At that point, you have to choose between what the Framers wrote, which was equal protection of the laws and what they assumed that equality could be achieved with segregation. You have to choose between those. I think it's proper to choose what they wrote and the basic principle of equality rather than their assumption that segregation was consistent with equality.

Did that strike anyone else as a resounding argument against original intent?
posted by mrgrimm at 3:29 PM on July 20, 2005


we are so fucking fucked it's not even fucking funny
posted by docpops at 3:41 PM on July 20, 2005


but hey, watching the most exalted and free, dynamic country ever created disappear up it's own asshole in a shitstorm of religious fervor and ignorance over a couple generations would be sort of fun to watch from across the sea. Too bad I'll be worm food by then.
posted by docpops at 3:42 PM on July 20, 2005


I admit I didn't read every word of the Bork interview, but I found it somewhat confusing. First he says we should interpret the Constitution based on the founder's intent. Then he says the 4th amendment only applies to people's houses and offices (even though it doesn't say anything about offices, and I guess the founders wrote 'persons' and 'effects' by mistake?), then he says that the government should be able to imprison people for having sex... guess where... in their houses.

So, in a lame attempt to make this on topic, I guess "rule of law" is code for "rule of the law we just make up as we go along".
posted by jlub at 3:48 PM on July 20, 2005


Any Americans here cry nightly before they go to sleep?
posted by chunking express at 3:50 PM on July 20, 2005


jlub, several reasons:

First, Amendment 9 reserves power to the people *and* states, i.e. states can legislate things the federal government cannot.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Clearly, this is a big problem for the first amendment, which begins "Congress shall make no law ..", but our current right wing isn't too opposed to the first amendment. Amendment 4 is more clear about limiting the actions of the states, but its not so clear about privacy really.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Its clearly a stretch to literally get "ass sex is okay" out of this, but judges usually take a less literalist possition, i.e. outlawing ass sex intrinsically violates your person. Plus, one can investigate the founders historical framework and nonlegal writings to help understand "intent." So its reality check time:

(1) The U.S. Constitution was only meant to last 50 years. They'd be thrilled to know it lasted 100, and horrified to know it lasted 200. Why take it so seriously now?

(2) Everyone just argues for their beliefs anyway. War on Drugs is clearly constitutionally questionable, but strict constructionist judges invariably drop their philosophy, and plead "interstate commerce" and liberal judges who uphold enviromental legislation plead states rights.

The truth is America is a rural bigotted place so its hard to get many good laws passed. Instead, Liberals found it easy to convince a few highly intellegent justices to extrapolate good laws from noble words (& folklore/history) using facts that are obvious today. Nice idea, cept. conservatives learned from it.

Anyway, Rove's pick here for the court won't help overturn Roe vs. Wade, for various reasons, but he will overturn many environmental and social laws.

BTW, I'd adore true states rights: each state having its own drug laws, no state preventing people crossing state lines to get drugs or abortions, etc. Alabama would ban all drugs developed after 2010 due to stem cells being used in the testing. Man, the intellegent costal states would quickly prove their superiority, and the tards would eventually reform.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:10 PM on July 20, 2005


The truth is America is a rural bigotted place so its hard to get many good laws passed....Man, the intellegent costal states would quickly prove their superiority, and the tards would eventually reform.

Irony, it's good for the blood. Everytime somebody makes a statement like that another Republican is born. Be proud. And hopefully your car will break down outside of a redneck bar someday.
posted by jonmc at 4:47 PM on July 20, 2005


also there's only one "t" in "bigotted," genius.
posted by jonmc at 4:54 PM on July 20, 2005


Any Americans here cry nightly before they go to sleep?

Any Americans here ever heard of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798? Read about the early colonies and republic? The machinations behind and around the Civil War?

Not that there isn't cause for concern today - but there ALWAYS has been. There ALWAYS will be. This apocalyptic hyperbole does nothing but ensure we keep arguing the same crap over and over. If there is any historical progress to be made it is to argue about new crap!

We will never win. We will never lose. Whichever side "we" are on. You might as well keep some perspective and enjoy the process.
posted by freebird at 5:16 PM on July 20, 2005


BTW, that was a "No, I don't cry myself to sleep".
posted by freebird at 5:34 PM on July 20, 2005


jonmc: actually, there are two ts in bigotted. But it's not a proper word. There is only one t in bigoted.

/pedant
posted by nylon at 5:37 PM on July 20, 2005


but hey, watching the most exalted and free, dynamic country ever created disappear up it's own asshole in a shitstorm of religious fervor and ignorance over a couple generations would be sort of fun to watch from across the sea.

thats a crock. what a short view. in fact, there's been a pendulum effect throughout the history of the nation. swing to the right, swing to the left. tick-tock. things in the usa have been careening to the left since the 1950's (probably longer, but my own view is rather short too) and it's to be expected that they'll swing back somewhat. i assert that it makes for no real long term disaster. even with the end of legal segregation racism still thrives. even if roe vs wade were undone, there would still be abortion, there always has been. there's miranda, but cops still rape the occasional suspect with a broomstick or pulverize them in the street while on video, and innocent men still go to jail, and guilty men still go free. the nice gay couple in apartment c may not be able enjoy employer-paid joint health benefits, but neither will anyone before long. and they're way less likely to be fired for cohabitating or get assaulted on the street than they were in the 50's. tick-tock. the sky is not falling. we have way more to fear from the economic warfare declared on us by the corporate megastates.
posted by quonsar at 5:44 PM on July 20, 2005


jeffburdges: (1) The U.S. Constitution was only meant to last 50 years. They'd be thrilled to know it lasted 100, and horrified to know it lasted 200.

I'd like to know your reasoning behind this. I can see Jefferson believing this, but Madison et al? I'd like to see some sources.
posted by papakwanz at 5:49 PM on July 20, 2005


moderation points: -1, troll.

Oh, wait, this isn't /.

I don't know how you read "crazy Christian fundy sleeper cell bigoted anti-homo stupid" into any of his comments.

Perhaps if I were to translate the posts of most respondants to mefi of anything resembling religious morality impacting someone's life it would something like this:

mefite: "Christians are stupid."

translated: "I am afraid to acknowledge the existance of God because that would undermine my ability to live based on moral relativism as opposed to an absolute truth."

Hmm, I guess anyone can do it.

Less critically, I'm amazed at the immediate backlash against this nominee, and the level of angst associated with him. Sounds like he could have picked someone much further to the right than this guy.
posted by intheory at 7:52 PM on July 20, 2005


quonsar: we have way more to fear from the economic warfare declared on us by the corporate megastates.

hear, hear. Same for your comments re: employer provided healthcare not being available for anyone. When I'm president I'm going to seriously reform this whole insurance thing so we all stop getting one pulled over on us with no recourse.
posted by intheory at 7:55 PM on July 20, 2005


John G. Roberts is a brilliant political choice. He is very confirmable, conservative and credibly qualified according to objective criteria and does not have the objectionable track record that others might have

Roberts does not have the judicial record or a lot of academic writings like Judge Bork. He had a lot of bipartisan support for his confirmation on the DC circuit. I think he may be a winner.
posted by sultan at 8:14 PM on July 20, 2005


even with the end of legal segregation racism still thrives. even if roe vs wade were undone, there would still be abortion, there always has been. there's miranda, but cops still rape the occasional suspect with a broomstick or pulverize them in the street while on video, and innocent men still go to jail, and guilty men still go free. the nice gay couple in apartment c may not be able enjoy employer-paid joint health benefits, but neither will anyone before long

Interesting. So by your reasoning a Christian dominated culture that removes the separation of church and state, that controls school boards, that creates standards for pharmacologic and medical research, and generally weighs any broadly applied policy against a litmus test of whether it'll fit between Jesus' ass cheeks is still no big deal because pockets of the 'status-quo', good or bad, have always thrived. That, frankly, is fucking retarded.

I didn't live through the last "pendulum swing", quonsar, but everything I can see tells me that we live in an era of unprecedented access to information and knowledge and people's ignorance has never been more fertile. The religious right has never been so well organized. There won't be another frontal assault that undoes them. It will be a quiet, insidious overtaking of the culture through the education and training of a new generation of Fundamentalist politicians, teachers, lawyers, and servicemen.
posted by docpops at 9:52 PM on July 20, 2005


rzklking, this is fucking ridiculous. Get your own blog, man.
posted by Snyder at 10:17 PM on July 20, 2005


The pendulum isn't swinging like it used. Those tricksie corporatists have discovered how to manipulate the masses to pervert the swing.

I am astounded that so many of you argue about rights as though the constitution were an exhaustive list. We have more rights than are enumerated there. It is the government that is limited by the constitution, not the people. To allow, for even a moment, the notion that it is otherwise, is to let the freedom-haters win.

But then, this whole Supreme Court nomination thing, at this time, is little more than a distraction from the simple obscene fact: The government is run by a band of criminals that need to be brought to justice, their deeds undone. The longer we take to do this, the higher and dearer will be the cost of the clean-up. That cost is expressed in dollars, lives, and international credibility. Arguing about the nomination is lending credibility to the criminals that nominated the guy.
posted by Goofyy at 10:40 PM on July 20, 2005


Bork! Bork! Bork!

/swede
posted by mr.marx at 1:17 AM on July 21, 2005


intheory, You'd realize Christians are truly stupid if you'd grown up in the south. :)

You can't save people from their own stupidity, but you can make the slobbering cave men obsolete. Just try to be part of an evolving subculture which will survive. Go do stemcell, sex, genetic, etc. research but don't be afraid to learn French, Chinese, or Californian if needs be.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:09 AM on July 21, 2005


So by your reasoning a Christian dominated culture that removes the separation of church and state, that controls school boards, that creates standards for pharmacologic and medical research, and generally weighs any broadly applied policy against a litmus test of whether it'll fit between Jesus' ass cheeks is still no big deal because pockets of the 'status-quo', good or bad, have always thrived.

That's not what quonsar said, and that's not what we have. Just because the current administration and the legislature are run by Republicans right now, we're nowhere near a "Christian dominated culture."

I didn't live through the last "pendulum swing", quonsar, but everything I can see tells me that we live in an era of unprecedented access to information and knowledge and people's ignorance has never been more fertile.

Since you can't see the past, by your own admission, how can you judge people's comparative ignorance? Or the "fertility" of that ignorance?

The religious right has never been so well organized. There won't be another frontal assault that undoes them.

They are well-organized, but their attempt to return us to an idealized version of the '50s that never actually existed is futile, because too many people prefer the present.
posted by me & my monkey at 5:36 AM on July 21, 2005


Face it, stupid George Bush is in the process of out-manouvring the Metafilter Crowd again. Looks like a decent nominee who was already approved the last time around.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:42 AM on July 21, 2005


maneuver. If abortion rights becomes a state issue, the world will not end. And it's not likely to happen. And if there's never nation-wide "gay marriage," the world will not end (although marriage might end if there is gay marriage). And you won't move to Canada in anger.

Get over it. There may be another terrorist attack in the London underground as we speak.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:46 AM on July 21, 2005


And if there's never nation-wide "gay marriage," the world will not end (although marriage might end if there is gay marriage).

I think the former - the world ending without gay marriage - is nearly as likely as the latter, and if marriage is such a fragile thing that it can't handle gay people, good riddance to it.

I can't figure out what annoys me more - the normal MeFi crowd whining about every little thing Bush does, or the turd-dropper like you with your "get over it" and your non-sequiturs. Oh, wait a minute ... yeah, it's you.
posted by me & my monkey at 6:10 AM on July 21, 2005


Just because your mind is incapable of making connections, doesn't mean they don't exist. Connection: you're starting with the premise that Judge Roberts is BAD because he was picked by President Bush. Well, maybe he's GOOD because he was picked by President Bush. And you don't need to be an evangelical Christian to think so.

I look forward to Judge Roberts' mind making mincemeant of the Senatorial and Metafilteral Lefties.

Besides. Almost every Metafilter thread needs a comment or two that's a reality check.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:20 AM on July 21, 2005


mincemeat.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:21 AM on July 21, 2005


I like mincemeant better. It's like a distant cousin to Mentos
posted by Hands of Manos at 7:00 AM on July 21, 2005


Paris: I will not take the thing from your hand.
posted by klangklangston at 7:07 AM on July 21, 2005


Mentos aren't kosher/vegetarian--beware!
posted by ParisParamus at 7:21 AM on July 21, 2005


Just because your mind is incapable of making connections, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Nor does it mean they do, just because you can.

Paris, you certainly make a lot of connections. They are not deemed significant by anyone else. They seem (to me) to be gigantic logical leaps. Your method of discourse seems to rely heavily on what psychologists call "magical thinking," where causative models are not deemed as significant as symbolic connections.

I'm not saying that such connections could not lead somewhere useful; I'm rather opposed to the positivist stance which only admits the conventional causative model. I'm saying that most people don't proceed in this way when reasoning things out, and if you want anyone to understand what you're getting at, you have to develop arguments which start with some premises and develop to a particular conclusion necessarily.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:23 AM on July 21, 2005


Just because your mind is incapable of making connections, doesn't mean they don't exist. Connection: you're starting with the premise that Judge Roberts is BAD because he was picked by President Bush. Well, maybe he's GOOD because he was picked by President Bush. And you don't need to be an evangelical Christian to think so.

First of all, that's not a connection - it's merely two opposing assertions.

More importantly, what makes you think those are my premises? Roberts doesn't seem like all that bad a choice to me, and his being a good or bad jurist has nothing to do with who chose him, as far as I can tell. I think O'Connor was a not-so-good jurist, and my complaints with her decisions have nothing to do with her being a Reagan appointee. If the value of a judicial appointment is purely driven by who made the appointment, it's not worth very much.

Besides. Almost every Metafilter thread needs a comment or two that's a reality check.

I agree. You ought to try providing one sometime, instead of the glib one-liners you bestow upon us.
posted by me & my monkey at 7:42 AM on July 21, 2005


sonofsam, I'm just trying to be entertaining while making a point. But actually, in this thread, even I will admit I've gone overboard. Sorry.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:43 AM on July 21, 2005


No need to apologize, man. I hope I wasn't overly forward.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:16 AM on July 21, 2005


« Older that's not a flipper   |   The Robo-Mind Meld Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post