Blood-sucking Australian Land Leech

[WandererInFog]

Wow Stripe, you are reading WAY to much into a simple humorous comment.

Well, I imagine Stripe is just upset because PB's post reminded him that his long dreamed of position as Public Flogger isn't likely to become a reality any time soon. :whip:

 

[Stripe]

Wow Stripe, you are reading WAY to much into a simple humorous comment.

I don't believe PB was making a simple comment. I think he was trying to undermine the OP and the radio show. I definitely don't think it was very funny. Imagine suggesting that punishing a criminal was the same as punching a baby.

 

[Lighthouse]

It was hypocrisy to utilize their services, pure and simple. I'm not interested in airing the past, it just comes to mind whenever I hear Bob or his associates demonizing the ACLU.

showing that even your enemies agree with you on an issue is a way to show that others are more wrong than they. Just like when the US and Russia teamed up in WWII against the NAZIs.

Bob and the ACLU are not enemies on the issue of free speech, at least not in that instance. And working together was mutually beneficial for each. So while they are very Anti-Christ they are not the real enemy. "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." [Ephesians 6:12]

You don't know the definition of hypocrisy. In The Art of War, Sun Tsu often said that using your enemy's resources against him is one of the wisest things to do in a conflict. He was right too.

Or using your enemy against themselves.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Rhetorical or not, the answer to your question is, "because it would not be popular." So is that the point of your question or are you just wasting everyone's time with meaningless posts?

Exactly what do you think you are doing by belaboring the obvious meaning of my post? I don't think anyone else is "confused" here.

 

[Stripe]

Exactly what do you think you are doing by belaboring the obvious meaning of my post?

The obvious meaning of your post is that you think flogging is wrong because a politician would never get voted in once it was known that he supported such. The obvious meaning of your post is that you consider flogging a criminal to be akin to punching a baby.

I don't think anyone else is "confused" here.

I don't think anyone is confused with or without the quotation marks. I just think you'd do better to make a statement you're willing to stand by rather than trying to belittle what you don't agree with and then running away from the statement when challenged on it by calling it a joke.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

The obvious meaning of your post is that you think flogging is wrong because a politician would never get voted in once it was known that he supported such.

:squint:
Not even close. Nice try, though.
While it is true that a politician who advocated flogging wouldn't have a prayer of being elected that doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it funny to hear people talk about it as though it were a "common sense" approach to justice that would make the USA more civilized. while knowing that it couldn't even be realistically mentioned in therms of actual policy without alienating the American people completely.
I think that's hysterical.

The obvious meaning of your post is that you consider flogging a criminal to be akin to punching a baby.

In terms of the effect it would have on a politician's future if he made it known that he supported either.

I don't think anyone is confused with or without the quotation marks. I just think you'd do better to make a statement you're willing to stand by rather than trying to belittle what you don't agree with and then running away from the statement when challenged on it by calling it a joke.

I'm not making the statement you apparently think I am, Stripe. That's not running away it's being upfront.

 

[Stripe]

How about you say something substantial?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

All you've done is belittled the concept with a statement you can easily run away from.

And all you've done is turned an aside into an epic. If you don't like my humor that's your taste but don't pretend its my responsibility to explain or excuse it.

If all you're trying to do is be funny then you're adding nothing. The only thing you might be adding is an appeal to popularity.

Maybe if I was basing my moral judgement of flogging on its lack of public support. I have done no such thing, nor have I implied it.

How about you say something substantial that you are not going to run away from?

I haven't run from anything.