[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Dec, 18:42, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Dec 17, 8:27*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 17 Dec, 07:24, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Dec 16, 9:20*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 16 Dec, 21:41, "Sophistic" wrote:

Sgt. Schultz still nose nuttingh:

Ah, so because I have no problem with gays serving...

It was a deceptively simple statement "Don't ask, don't tell has served you well
lo these many years," that flushed out the response sought.

A straight male would have responded along the lines of 'I don't give a whit, it
doesn't mean anything to me or affect in any way,' but only an
intensely-interested advocate, i.e., a homo, would provide such a lengthy
response complete with links and all. Whether you realized it (or not) then or
are willing to admit it (or not) now, but you confirmed it beyond a doubt.

And you can stick that in your personal sperm bank, sugar.

You are an idiot.
40 some percent of Californians voted for gay marriage
(it is well known I oppose it), that does not mean that they are all
gay.

that someone takes a gay rghts position has nothing to do with
whether or not they are gay.

I have seen you take a number of pro idiot positions, i guess
that means you are an idiot.

Um, Clyde, I agree with you here, but sugar is exemplifying the "you
can't be an officer because you don't think like one" train of
thought.

no, he did not.

Yes, he did.

It's a dangerous line of reasoning. Remove "straight male" from
sugar's argument and insert "Army officer" to see how it works.-

it would go like this:
If one supports rights for officrs, on must be an officer.

The point is making assumptions on what some particular group
("straight males" or "Army officers") has to think or behave like.

"An Army officer would believe the things that you do." "An Army
officer wouldn't behave in this way." "A straight white male would
believe this..." etc. They're exactly identical lines of argument in
this way.-

that wasn't sugar's argument.

anwya, you are a hypocrite, as you ascribe'that swame reasoning
to republicans and conservatives.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

"An Army officer would believe the things that you do." "An Army
officer wouldn't behave in this way." "A straight white male would
believe this..." etc. They're exactly identical lines of argument in
this way.-

that wasn't sugar's argument.

Wuz too.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 17, 7:32*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 17 Dec, 18:42, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Dec 17, 8:27*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 17 Dec, 07:24, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Dec 16, 9:20*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 16 Dec, 21:41, "Sophistic" wrote:

Sgt. Schultz still nose nuttingh:

Ah, so because I have no problem with gays serving...

It was a deceptively simple statement "Don't ask, don't tell has served you well
lo these many years," that flushed out the response sought.

A straight male would have responded along the lines of 'I don't give a whit, it
doesn't mean anything to me or affect in any way,' but only an
intensely-interested advocate, i.e., a homo, would provide such a lengthy
response complete with links and all. Whether you realized it (or not) then or
are willing to admit it (or not) now, but you confirmed it beyond a doubt.

And you can stick that in your personal sperm bank, sugar.

You are an idiot.
40 some percent of Californians voted for gay marriage
(it is well known I oppose it), that does not mean that they are all
gay.

that someone takes a gay rghts position has nothing to do with
whether or not they are gay.

I have seen you take a number of pro idiot positions, i guess
that means you are an idiot.

Um, Clyde, I agree with you here, but sugar is exemplifying the "you
can't be an officer because you don't think like one" train of
thought.

no, he did not.

Yes, he did.

It's a dangerous line of reasoning. Remove "straight male" from
sugar's argument and insert "Army officer" to see how it works.-

it would go like this:
If one supports rights for officrs, on must be an officer.

The point is making assumptions on what some particular group
("straight males" or "Army officers") has to think or behave like.

"An Army officer would believe the things that you do." "An Army
officer wouldn't behave in this way." "A straight white male would
believe this..." etc. They're exactly identical lines of argument in
this way.-

that wasn't sugar's argument.

anwya, you are a hypocrite, as you ascribe'that swame reasoning
to republicans and conservatives.

I wasn't aware that straight males and Army officers had published a
platform. My bad.

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Dec, 21:05, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

"An Army officer would believe the things that you do." "An Army
officer wouldn't behave in this way." "A straight white male would
believe this..." etc. They're exactly identical lines of argument in
this way.-

that wasn't sugar's argument.

Wuz too.

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Dec, 21:05, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

"An Army officer would believe the things that you do." "An Army
officer wouldn't behave in this way." "A straight white male would
believe this..." etc. They're exactly identical lines of argument in
this way.-

that wasn't sugar's argument.

Wuz too.

nope, he said if you support rights for a group,
you must be a member of that group

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 18, 6:03*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 17 Dec, 21:05, George M. Middius wrote:

Clyde Slick said:

"An Army officer would believe the things that you do." "An Army
officer wouldn't behave in this way." "A straight white male would
believe this..." etc. They're exactly identical lines of argument in
this way.-

that wasn't sugar's argument.

Wuz too.

nope, he said if you support rights for a group,
you must be a member of that group

And if you don't act or believe in a certain way, you aren't a member
of that group.

So tell me the difference? (Hint: none)

[John[_45_]]

On Dec 15, 10:04*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
I think you nailed sugar on the "creepy" aspect, but I just became
aware that she's also a religious whackjob in close philosophical
get some giggles on this aspartame stuff

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.c...dline=s2i45352

kinship with Bratzi.

I suspected that sugar was a GOIA sockpuppet. Now I think it's
possible that she's a Bratzi sockpuppet. GOIA has the religious
whackjob stuff down cold, but that poor insane fool could not write
his way out of a paper bag. Bratzi, the hate-mongering Nazi, can at
least write.

I'd say sugar is the creation of one or the other of them. She seems a
perfect union of them both: not quite sane, hateful, and religious.
She's a venomous little thing, isn't she?

That's our sugar! LOL!