Getting back on topic, it should be noted that DeLay's got probably the best attorney in the business for this type of defense -- Dick DeGuerin. Yep, the same guy that got Kay Bailey Hutchinson off the hook for similar junk years ago. The guy is good at what he does.
well, if you think that diversity is so great, i dont see what was wrong with my argument. reason is right. if we are discussing a problem or the way government should be run, it doesnt help to add diverse opinions just because they are diverse. opinions arent good just because they exist. they are good because they are rational. diversity just means difference. a couple communists in the senate would make the debate on the senate floor more diverse, and worse. america isnt great because of diversity. it doesnt add to america that there are christians and moonies and idiots and muslims here. those groups have terrible and stupid ideas. i ask agin, do you in fact believe that baton rouge is made better by increasing diversity if that diversity is the addition of radical muslims? if america didnt have diverse opinions at all, and was one large group of rational atheists who favored freedom and small government, that would be great. your diversity would only hurt things.
I have never said that anything was good just because it's diverse. What I am saying is that good is often (not always) discovered through diversity. You've never tried something 'new' and been very pleased with the results? That's the line of thinking I'm on. Not some idealogy that something is good or beautiful just beacause it's different. I don't know where you got the idea that I was insinuating that the government would benefit from considering every possible viewpoint when making decisions. It certainly does add to America. In fact, it's what makes up America. Save for Natives, no one is really 'American.' We are all descendants of various nationalities and races that are often historically intertwined with various Relgious groups. The acceptance and tolerance of those various creeds and lineages are what made the America that you and I know unique in early times. As I pointed out to salty earlier, the rejection and condemnation of those things have also created some of the most shameful eras in our brief history. What a silly question. Baton Rouge could be made better, however, by the influx of some other group of people that had remarkable engineering skills and could alleviate the cities traffic problems within 5 years. So, what's your point? Obviously, there are good and bad things that come with diversity. I believe I've pointed that out already.
and you shouldnt, because diversity has no real value. things are good and bad totally independent of how "diverse" they are. the reason i said anything is because of how you were so childish with your lecturing of saltyone. he specifically said he did not have anything against rex, but he disliked his opinions. and you got up on your high horse and enlightened him about the joys of diversity. salty says: "It is not so much you personally I dislike Rex, it's your ideals." which is a perfecly reasonable and tolerant statement. but you love a chance to preach, so you reply: "God forbid anyone think differently from you. There are people that dislike your ideals as much as you dislike Rex's. Does that make either of you right? No. It's called subjectivity. Intolerance is the truly dangerous ideal." this is about as pompous as it gets. what intolerance are you talking about? he just said he doesnt dislike rex! he just disagrees! but you know what is best, so you taught him a lesson about how good people are tolerant and love every opinion and diversity. i am assuming you mean that the influx of radical muslims would be bad for baton rouge. is that what you mean? what about tolerance? what about diversity? "Diverse viewpoints are what makes America strong." -contained chaos you might want to add: "not really". the natives are actually american? when is the time cutoff for that? (all people are descended from africa, guy)
Anytime you want to stop putting words into my mouth is fine, dude. I know what he said. And I informed him that people think the same way about him as he does about Rex. Big deal. Again, what's your point? If you think I'm horrible for saying what I did, tell me. If you disagree with it, tell me. Don't feel like you have to go through this endless charade of arguing something that no one was even saying in the first place to allude to it. I'm of the opinion that you are fully aware when you ask a stupid question in an attempt to lead someone. If it were worth acknowledging, I might consider it. You might want to stop putting words into my mouth. I stand by my statement. Take note that it doesn't include any foolish suggestion that every single opinion in the world is rational or should be considered. That's what you seem hellbent on believing, and I'm not reviewing it again. I know from your arguments with red that you believe things only exist in their extremes. But believe it or not, that is simply not the case. Any group of people can be unified if they're all the same. That's easy. It makes the unification of the group stronger if the individual parts are accepting of one anothers differences. Don't dance around the point because of some technical detail. You know as well as I do that America is largely composed of immigrant descendants. One last time, what's your point? You think America should be reduced to one race of people that are homogenized in thought and beliefs? Fine. Sounds pretty miserable to me. And that may suit you just fine, I don't know.
he knew that already. you saw a chance to ride your high horse and preach to him the virtues of tolerance, and you took it. that kind of preachyness is a miserable quality, in my opinion. i do think you are preachy and pompous, and i think you repeat what you have heard without thinking about it. tolerance and diversity are happy and mindless things to preach to people who already know how the difference between a person and their opinions. thats what salty was saying. he didnt respect rex's opinion. but you know that diversity make people happy, so you told him. thats what i am telling you. accepting differences is not the same as pretending the differences are what makes something good. america is good because of democracy and capitalism and freedom, not because there are all sorts of people with crazy ideas here. if there were all sorts of crazy ideas here, and none of them were capitalism and democracy, that would suck, even if it were 500 times more diverse than it is now. the point is this: we all know that we all have the right to our opinions and we cannot and should not shut each other up. that doesnt mean anyone needs a lecture on the merits of diversity.
Kiddo, you've got absolutely no room to 'preach' to me about being condescending. You are, without question, the single most pompous individual on this forum. Assume what you will. You have nothing to base this on. When did I say that I knew that diversity made people happy? This another one of your assumptions? Why do you continue to split hairs? Never really had a point, so you threw this completely pointless statement out at the last second? It took you that long to express how upset you were over me 'lecturing on the merits of diversity?' Good grief.
for the sake of argument let's assume i am very very pompous. how does that mean i am unqualified to call you out? what does it have to do with anything? oh yes i remember, you like to avoid refuting anything in favor of accusing others. you might grow out of that. i didnt say i was upset. i am glad when people expose themselves for what they are. carry on.
Are you saying that he is guilty because he has the best attorney? I have yet to read of what Delay is actually being charged with, what I mean by this is that he has the right to know the details of what he has been charged. I don't know the details of Kay Bailey Hutchinson incident but can you prove she was guilty in the first place? Just maybe you are assuming these people are guilty when there is a chance they may not be. For those that will attack me for this I have to say this. I'm a conservative right winger who believes that Republicans have better ethics than Democrats. Most Republicans tend to stand up for freedoms, god, country, pro-life. Some go to church and are out standing citizens in their communities. Conservatives also aren't for a "living breathing" constitution meaning they don't try and change it to their liking. Democrats are more likely to be atheists, attack god, pro-death(abortion), Because of these reasons they obviously don't go to church as much and have less morals and morality than someone who believes in god. I'm not saying all democrats here but the party fits the mold. A Democrat nominated Ruth Ginsburg who was an ACLU trial lawyer. That tells me all I need to know about this party and what it stands for. The Liberals are the ones changing the laws of the land such as public domain, they believe in a "living breathing" constitution meaning they can mold it to fit to their liking. Take Brier the other day, he was on a Sunday morning show saying that the founding fathers couldn't imagine the world we live in today, automobiles, tv, etc. So that gives him the right to change the Constitution. Before you guys get to hostile this is my opinion.
No, don't see where I said that either. Sure, I've got a big secret file in my closet, of course I'm saving it for a rainy day. Glad their marketing is working on somebody. If you're insinuating that there aren't Democrats that are the same way, that's just ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. Some good people (wrongly) believe that government is the cure for all ills. Of course, they now call themselves Democrats and Republicans, depending on party leanings of their electorate. Nice oversimplification. There may be some truth with the recent Supreme Court justices, but plenty of Republicans simply choose to ignore the Constitution, rather than try to interpret it. Democrats are more likely to be atheists, attack god, pro-death(abortion), Because of these reasons they obviously don't go to church as much and have less morals and morality than someone who believes in god. I'm not saying all democrats here but the party fits the mold. A Democrat nominated Ruth Ginsburg who was an ACLU trial lawyer. That tells me all I need to know about this party and what it stands for. The Liberals are the ones changing the laws of the land such as public domain, they believe in a "living breathing" constitution meaning they can mold it to fit to their liking. Only Congress can change the Constitution. The SC merely interprets it, and such interpretations ebb and flow over time. Liberal interpretations are certainly nothing new. Nevertheless, do you honestly think they could have envisioned today's world?? If you're that concerned about maintaining the literal interpretation of the Constitution, I have no idea why you don't like the ACLU. While I don't always agree with their social stances, that is the organization that most vigorously polices the actions of the legislative and executive branches to keep them in line with the Constitution.
