So much for the constitution.....

[The King]

When quote-mined, I can see how you can come to that conclusion. However, in context, it is an admission that judging people makes people look foolish.

It was explained and demonstrated how the post you were responding to was not a judgement, but a demonstrable behavior on Denny's behalf.

No, nothing was demonstrated by you simply posting your own explanation. An explanation is not in and of itself true simply because it was offered.

What is true is that the term "hypocrisy" was first introduced into this thread by you. By introducing it in response to one of Denny's posts, you have indeed placed yourself in a position where you see yourself fit to judge "someone" as hypocritical.

[Denny]

If you know that it would suck, then you should be able to know why.



Must have gotten lost in the mail. You'd think with all the capabilities attributed to it, it wouldn't use the postal service to send the damn thing.

The USPS doesn't discriminate... they'll fuck up anyone's mail.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

It depends on what they are appointed to do and the power they are given by the POTUS.

Well, sure. Czar is just a label for executive appointments. I admittedly don't know the particulars about how much power each appointee has had over the last decade, and earlier, but I'd hazard a guess (in agreement) that Obama's have been higher profile and arguably more destructive.

[Maddhattter]

No, nothing was demonstrated by you simply posting your own explanation. An explanation is not in and of itself true simply because it was offered.

Denny has stated one thing, then acted in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. (I assume Denny is a guy. I just don't know as I've never met Denny.)

Considering the evidence supports this, it's not just an explanation.

What is true is that the term "hypocrisy" was first introduced into this thread by you. By introducing it in response to one of Denny's posts, you have indeed placed yourself in a position where you see yourself fit to judge "someone" as hypocritical.

Never said I didn't use the term, nor did I intend to imply that. I didn't even bring up who used the term. I only brought up the context in which it was used.

Still, as it's not an opinion, it's not a judgement. If it's not a judgement, I am, therefore, not judging.

[Gargamel]

[jasonw_2005]

Does any one else have a headache?

[Denny]

Does any one else have a headache?

I usually don't get one until page 5 or 6, so game on!

[mstng86]

Whose brain is bigger?

Queue the Jeopardy music.

[The King]

Denny has stated one thing, then acted in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. (I assume Denny is a guy. I just don't know as I've never met Denny.)

Considering the evidence supports this, it's not just an explanation.

No, he has not acted in contradiction to his stated beliefs or feelings. Thus, there is no evidence to support your explanation.

Never said I didn't use the term, nor did I intend to imply that. I didn't even bring up who used the term. I only brought up the context in which it was used.

You are the one who used the term, so your statement above "I didn't even bring up who used the term" is foolish.

Still, as it's not an opinion, it's not a judgement. If it's not a judgement, I am, therefore, not judging.

It is, however, an opinion and a judgement. Thus, since it is a judgement, you are, therefore, judging.

[The King]

Does any one else have a headache?

Not at all, this is routine stuff here LOL

[Denny]

No, he has not acted in contradiction to his stated beliefs or feelings. Thus, there is no evidence to support your explanation.

I think he is referring to the Constitutional wording of Congress shall not establish any religion, but it really isn't since it never specifies a perticular God; just God.

That's pretty freakin' patriotic, yo!

[Maddhattter]

No, he has not acted in contradiction to his stated beliefs or feelings. Thus, there is no evidence to support your explanation.

So, you're stating that Denny has not stated his support for the constitution, and in this thread stated that he's glad that the government is supporting religion, which is is forbidden to do in said constitution?

You are the one who used the term, so your statement above "I didn't even bring up who used the term" is foolish.

You stated

What is true is that the term "hypocrisy" was first introduced into this thread by you.

Considering the fact had no value, "Never said I didn't use the term, nor did I intend to imply that. I didn't even bring up who used the term. I only brought up the context in which it was used." becomes valid, as I was pointing out that it had no value, by means of it not being in contest, and countering by demonstrating how it was brought up.

It is, however, an opinion and a judgement. Thus, since it is a judgement, you are, therefore, judging.

How is it an opinion? Denny has expressed his support for the constitution such as:

We will pull out of every military base in the world and finally utilize the military the way it was designed for. Nothing more, nothing less. (See Constitution for what Congress can do with the military)

This statement directly shows that he is supporting the constitutional limits of the government.

Couple that with his statements above, and he is being hypocritical. No judgement, as there is no opinion. Just demonstrable hypocrisy.

[mustangguy289]

Does any one else have a headache?

I am not sure... I can't prove that I have a headache, so it does not exist.

[Denny]

Read again, genius.

[Maddhattter]

I think he is referring to the Constitutional wording of Congress shall not establish any religion,

^This.

but it really isn't since it never specifies a perticular God; just God.

That's pretty freakin' patriotic, yo!

This has already been covered in this thread. Please refer to the previous post concerning this issue to see my problem with this apologetic.