Today the Vatican. You’re Vatican revealed more child sex abuse, and a prominent anti-gay Wife and kids California republican legislature came out as actually being gay.

Posted by Jack Schite
2010-03-08 15:45:46

Sorry but I have NO affilition with the Vatican or the Catholic Shurch, MORON, so your point is completely invalid.

So the guy is gay, it’s an issue for him and his family, and none of my business or yours. Unlees you think you understand fully what I or any other conservative thinks about the homosexaul lifestyle CHOICE.

Today the Vatican. You’re Vatican revealed more child sex abuse, and a prominent anti-gay Wife and kids California republican legislature came out as actually being gay.
Posted by Jack Schite 2010-03-08 15:45:46

So we now know that you have no problem with children being abused if it is Liberal abusing them, and that you only support non-Republican gay people.

Lot of hatred on display, Jacky. You should be ashamed.

Posted by Jack Schite 2010-03-08 15:45:46

“Deflector shields up, Mr. Chekov!”

Even though I am a strong conservative, I thnik it is unjust to paint all liberals as potential pedophiles because of the actions of one school. If this shows to be a trend at similar schools, then we should sound the alarm, not before.

As a side note, I find Jennings’ positions abhorrent and decry the amount of influence he is given. I’m just waiting for the next scandal to break out and for him to be thrown under the bus.

Final note. Jack, quit the trolling. It’s old, tired, and long past the point of having any entertainment value. If you are not going to contribute meaningfully to a discussion, please quit bothering the rest of us. I am tired of seeing threads hijacked by squabbling between you and the other posters. Go back to the Daily Kos, where you will be loved and appreciated.

I thnik it is unjust to paint all liberals as potential pedophiles because of the actions of one school.

Good thing nobody did that then.

Good thing nobody did that then.

The article implies it.

The article implies it.

Says who? Just because you infer something doesn’t mean the author actually implied it.

I see nothing in this post that either implicitly or explicitly states that all liberals are pedophiles. If that’s the inference you drew then I think you’re mistaken.

Says who? Just because you infer something doesn’t mean the author actually implied it.

Posted by mightysamurai
2010-03-08 22:00:08

Obtuse much, samurai?

Obtuse much, samurai?

Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2010-03-09 09:45:31

Tom, I know you’re predisposed to finding fault with any- and everything conservatives say, but this comment verges on that from a nagging spouse, which is to say petty and carping. What mighty said makes perfect sense and isn’t obtuse in the least. The point he’s made is that authors can’t possibly be held to account for what every potential reader reads into his/her work. You find that obtuse?

The point he’s made is that authors can’t possibly be held to account for what every potential reader reads into his/her work. You find that obtuse?

A fair point Martin, to be sure.

But look at the entry again. VH details the laundry list of horrible abuses that went on that school, and his very next sentence reads: “Naturally the school was philosophically grounded in moonbattery.” How else would you read that, Martin, if not a related indictment of liberalism at large.

Oh and by the way, it was impulse910, a conservative, who pointed this out well before I did. And I feel like I’ve even see you too, Martin, call out Van Helsing for his misleading headlines, right?

Tom, nice try at recovery, but bringing the OP and impulse910 into the picture doesn’t alter the fact that the focus of your comment was directly aimed at the clarity of mighty’s remark. While you called his comment obtuse, I didn’t find any “obtuse-ness” about it – the meaning came across clearly which is how I was able to restate his point without any difficulty.

Gotta run to a meeting. Have a pleasant afternoon.

the focus of your comment was directly aimed at the clarity of mighty’s remark.

That’s absolutely correct, but it is fitting to bring up the chronology of the the post and thread which led mightysamurai to make that remark in the first place. I would appreciate it if you would answer the question I posed about VH’s comment: “Naturally the school was liberal,” which in my mind, (and impulses910′s) is a pretty clear suggestion that being a liberal and pedophile go hand in hand.

But look at the entry again.

Yes, look at the entry again. Nowhere does it say “these pedophiles were liberals, therefore all liberals are pedophiles”. Naturally you inferred that message because like all liberals on this site you have a irrational, pathological hatred of Van Helsing and you interpret anything and everything he says in the worst possible light.

Hence my comment on inference versus implication. Just because YOU infer a certain message doesn’t mean that message actually exists.

Naturally you inferred that message because like all liberals on this site you have a irrational, pathological hatred of Van Helsing and you interpret anything and everything he says in the worst possible light.

Except that boilerplate response doesn’t really apply to impulse910, samurai, because HE’S NOT A LIBERAL.

And will you please indulge me…. what do you make of the list of abuses immediately followed by this: “Naturally the school was philosophically grounded in moonbattery.”