JoeFerguson

How many times in your life have you actually had to act in self defense against a fatal beer that was thrown at you?

Are you even from Indiana?

If I'm walking down the street and someone throws a beer at me, I wouldn't kick his ass. If I'm at a Bills game, and someone throws something at me, I wouldn't kick his ass, because I would face legal consequences. Ron Artest climbed into the stands and attacked someone that was not threatening him in any unusual way. He is paid millions of dollars to play basketball. The fact that he was stupid enough to jeopardize this salary by punching a man for throwing a beer at him is grounds for a lifetime ban from the NBA as well as legal consequence. I don't care how many fans are throwing beers. Those players should have left the court and gone to the locker room. If the game was resumed, they could have come back out. To glorify Ron Artest's behavior is absolutely ridiculous, regardless of the hostility of the crowd.

You're right. You beat me. I am such an idiot. The attack on you was based on responses I've read from you on this entire board, not just this one thread. You're obnoxious and it has nothing to do with your stance on any issue, it's the way you present yourself.

Can you provide a scientific study to prove that it is physically and psychologically abusive? Don't people volunteer to do it? Have you ever engaged in anal sex?

If you are not using 'lib' as an insult, then why did you use the term 'stupid lib' in this quote?

First of all, one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I always interpretted the 'lib' label as an all encompassing ideological label. If I am in favor of gay marriage, why can't you just label me as a "Gay Marriage Supporter" as opposed to a "liberal". It would be a lot more descriptive. AD brings up a good point by saying why even label people? I wasn't offended by the "liberal" label, I was just pointing out that by using it as an insult it greatly decreases your clout as a debater. Name calling doesn't win arguments or sway opinions, it only pleases people that already agree with you. Obviously these labels are generalizations anyway. Now, as far as my "ridiculous" post goes, once again you have not read all of the posts in this thread. Although the post I quoted Arondale on was not dealing with the issue of gay marriage directly, this post actually does: I believe the key words in this post are: "As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is morally wrong." Although this quote does not specifically mention the Bible, I think Arondale would happily agree that as a Chrisitan, his opposition to homosexuality comes directly from the Bible. I really didn't think he was forcing his views on me, he was just telling them to me. I was just giving him the reasons why I disagree with those views.

One law in which adultry is encouraged: state sanctioned DIVORCE Although I think polygamy is kind of weird and I would never personally want to be involved in a polygamous marriage, I do not see any problem with it as long as it does not physically harm the parties involved....FLAME AWAY! Incest of course is no good because it's biologically bad for the gene pool.

Typical kneejerk reaction? First of all, Arondale referenced the Bible in several posts in this thread. He also stated his religious affliation as Christianity, and that it was the basis for his opposition to gay marriage. Try reading the thread next time. Here is just one of those quotes: Second of all, by no means am I a liberal. I voted for Bush. MichFan, I may agree with you on many ideological issues, but I'd have to say your debating skills are terrible. Just about every post you've made on this thread prefaces with the "Typical lib....blah blah blah blah blah" and then you eloquently finish off your stereotype with the emoticon. How, in anyway, did you refute the post I made? Did you critique the reasoning behind it? Did you offer a point by point counter-argument? All you did was give me an insulting one liner that falsely stereotyped me. While mine was an erroneously labeled as a "Typical lib kneejerk reaction", I'd have to say yours was a "Typical idiot kneejerk reaction". As long as I am sparring with MichFan, I'd also like to ask you if you think sodomy between a man and a woman is morally worse/better/or just as bad as sodomy among two men?

To ofiba and Arrondale: Why is the sin of homosexuality singled out? And why does the Bible have to be the moral standard for the United States? Our country was founded on the basis of religious freedom. Homosexuals do not think it is immoral. If we are going to persecute people for sinning, why don't we have a constitutional ban on adultry(it's in the ten commandments)? Adultry is defined as sex with someone who is not your spouse. Therefore anyone who has had premarital sex has also committed adultry. Since we want to keep marriage as a sacred bond between a man and a woman, I think we should not allow anyone to get married that has committed adultry. Now we've excluded anyone who has disgraced the sacred bond by having sex with someone other than their spouse. Since we believe strongly about upholding the institution of marriage, we shouldn't condone these people (adulterers) and their lifestyle, let alone grant them equality in marriage. While we're at it, how about we persecute anyone who goes to work on Sunday. After all, that's breaking another one of the commandments. If we are going to be crusaders for morality, we should crusade against all sins. Like ofiba said, "They cannot pick and choose which immoral acts to allow, and which ones to frown upon."

bledsoe better put up or shut up

Then why are you speaking out about your beliefs on a public message board? Also, ofiba, it's very anal(pun intended) of you to pick apart every last bit of the argument against homosexuality. Being gay is a sin. In the fundamental Christian eyes, all sins are equal. Why aren't you crusading against liars, or going for a Constitutional ban on impure thoughts? What makes homosexuality such a hot button issue?

I wasn't referring to your soul. I was referring to your status as a Catholic. I was using the term 'excommunication' in reference to expulsion from the Church as an institution, not in a spiritual sense.

No, I'm just trying to say that the terms 'practicing Catholic', 'devout Christian', etc. have very broad and loose definitions. Prefacing a statement by giving yourself one of these labels automatically makes you prone to a huge amount of scrutiny. By your definition, I am also a practicing Catholic, but I would never label myself this when engaging in an argument such as this. You say you are a practicing Catholic, but you say that you don't force your views on anyone else. A few weeks ago at mass they encouraged us to recruit new members for the RCIA. Encouraging others to learn about your faith is not exclusive to born again Christians. When you say, "I'm a practicing Catholic...don't be so quick to judge...my relationship with God is mine....you get it... not yours", I think you contradict yourself a bit. Also, you become a stereotype of the KzooMike Catholic who only goes because that's what his parents told him to do since he was little. Then fundamental Christians use your example to make fun of all Catholics, giving the Mother Teresa's of this world a bad name. Don't claim to be a practicing Catholic unless you actually do everything the Church tells you to do. I think both presidential candidates made religious statements similar to this one in order to manipulate voters. John Kerry was constantly reminding people that he was Catholic, but he was divorced and pro-choice, which I thought were two ways to get you excommunicated.

Does that also include going to confession, attending mass on holy days of obligation, abstaining from premarital sex, abstaining from the use of any forms of birth control, taking a pro-life stance on abortion, etc., etc., etc.? Does active in church activities mean you volunteer at bingo?

What exactly makes you a 'practicing Catholic'?

yeah ofiba

voted

AD, who are you voting for? I'm guessing you're voting for Michael Badnarik.

Incubus is an alternative rock band. According to this, it's J.P.'s favorite band. And yes, he did answer the kid.

Last night I went to see Incubus at UB's Alumni Arena. Two average looking guys sat behind me, and at first I didn't recognize them. Then I realized that one of them was J.P. Losman and the other one was an extremely large man who was also a Bill. I think it was Dylan McFarland. At first glance, it seemed like his leg was fine, but as the show progressed he looked uncomfortable and kept putting his leg up on the seat in front of him. Anyway, most of the kids there were oblivious to who he was, except for a couple of kids that recognized him and asked, "Are you J.P. Losman?" Oh, and the Incubus show was only average. They were a bit boring IMHO.

It's immature the way you spell ridiculous.

I am assuming you're kidding, but if not, LINK please?

I don't mean to be a jerk, but this has been bothering me for a long time. The word is not spelled "rediculous", it is spelled "ridiculous". You have made this spelling error at least ten times that I have noticed, and probably more. I realize plently of other people on the wall are guilty of chronic spelling errors, but you have 8,742 posts since Sept. 2003, so I am singling you out. Please learn to spell that word.

you've been scooped http://205.134.161.85/forums/index.php?showtopic=6896