The Code is Almighty wrote:He doesn't want anything, other than just to argue.

That is the most disgusting remark I've seen on the PRF, Code. I mean, he wished harm to his wife and unborn child? That's fucking WAY crazy insane shit.

When people say that kind of shit f2f they get to dig teeth out of their forehead.

Unbelievable, Bob. Fucking low class.

Rick Reuben wrote:

ubercat wrote:What the fuck Bob? This is well beneath you.

Relax, Grohl.

Fuck you Bob. You just burned another guy who wasn't completely annoyed with you.

Fucking classless fuck.

ubercat wrote:

The Code is Almighty wrote:He doesn't want anything, other than just to argue.

That is the most disgusting remark I've seen on the PRF, Code. I mean, he wished harm to his wife and unborn child? That's funking WAY crazy.

When people say that kind of shit f2f they get to dig teeth out of their forehead.

Unbelievable, Bob. Fucking low class.

What? What he said about my wife getting hit with a bat?
It wasn't completely out of line, he was illustrating a point. He wasn't threatening anyone or saying it would be a good thing to happen. By using it in an argument he was illustrating how horrible it would be for that to happen, actually.
I wasn't offended by it other than having to sit and think about how I would react to such a terrible thing for a couple seconds.
We live in an ultraviolent city. That type of shit does happen, it's something you have to think about.

[on topic]

He can't win without a sizable % of the evangelical vote.

[/on topic]

ubercat wrote:

The Code is Almighty wrote:He doesn't want anything, other than just to argue.

That is the most disgusting remark I've seen on the PRF, Code. I mean, he wished harm to his wife and unborn child? That's funking WAY crazy.

When people say that kind of shit f2f they get to dig teeth out of their forehead.

Unbelievable, Bob. Fucking low class.

Well he didn't actually wish any harm, but for a hypothetical situation proposed as a point of debate, it wasn't necessary to make it so personal like that. Some degree of instigation was obviously intended, not that that's surprising in any way. Class and tact are not exactly Rick Reuben's forte.

This forum is seriously breaking Rick Reuben's mind.

Marsupialized wrote:What? What he said about my wife getting hit with a bat?

Yeah. It's pretty easy to make an argument without half-wishing harm on someone. He hit as far low as he thought he could.

He'd never say that to your face. Never.

John D. Loudermilk wrote:Break my mind, Lordy Lordy Lordy
Break my mind, oh Lord
If you leave you're gonna leave a babblin' fool behind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muo30yeL8yA

I think Bob using a wisdom of Solomon type situation to make his point. Shocking, but I assume that was a way of getting the mind focused on his example. And I think he said it that way in the service of his point, not to merely be violently rude.

The only reason I can think of why women should have sole say on abortability or not is because they have to go through the process of pregnancy, labour, etc. which I don't know but I assume is physically and mentally exhausting.

If physical discomfort is a point, then maybe feti shouldn't be aborted once they have developed their nerve endings to such a degree that they can experience physical pain.

Maybe UFO's are actually the ectoplasmic womb-like vehicles of aborted babies returned to earth to enact their revenge on humans.

Colonel Panic wrote:For a hypothetical situation, it wasn't necessary to make it personal like that. Some degree of instigation was obviously intended, not that that's surprising in any way.

I didn't take it that way. It's a real over the top way to argue a point and you are best of not pulling that with everyone everywhere but I have shown plenty of times I am open to using extremes and outrageous words and statements to illustrate a point as long as they aren't directly threatening to someone. I didn't take it as a fuck you to me.
More importantly, my wife wouldn't be terribly offended or take it as a threat or wish she was hurt either.

ubercat wrote:[on topic]

He can't win without a sizable % of the evangelical vote.

[/on topic]

I think that it is more important for him to appeal to the larger community of "faiths", as more and more religious people recognise themselves as part of a larger demographic and want ecumenism in politics and journalists more than they would like it in their places of worship. This is way that British and European politicians secure the religious vote.

The fundamentalist kernel will no vote for Obama anyway, but the left leaners are ecumenist almost by definition. It is also a sad fact that the average religious voter will not be well versed regarding policy issues are decided on religious ground. They will know how they should vote regarding abortion, Islam, creationism, legal rights for scientology, religious school grants, etc. but they won't necessarily know the specifics; therefore they fall into a "community of faiths" catch-all withotu realising they might be voting for someone contrary to their issues.

A good UK example would be the very strong support for Smith and Blair in areas of Wales dominated by Chapel and Scotland by Baptists/Post-Puritans: they voted from the security of those addressed as a diverse, community of faiths but legislation undercut several of their key issues and a lot of traditions and community/identities. It might seem smallfry compared to the states, but I think it is the spiral of silence at work whatever the scale of the vote.

Pastor issues aside (and I don't think they are that relevant to Obama's supporters), Obama doesn't even have to make his ecumenist tendencies explicit to get the message across and I think voters will be very easily convinced of his sincerity regarding spiritual issues.