Why is God Ignoring Rick Perry?

[micatala]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... &emc=thab1


This is an admittedly somewhat tongue in cheek thread.

Back in April, governor Perry called for a three-day period of prayer to end the drought in Texas.

The weather responded with more drought and record-breaking periods of 100 degree heat.

This past weekend, Rick Perry prayed for the economy. On Monday the Dow suffered one of its biggest point drops ever.



Questions for debate:

1) Is God ignoring Perry and his prayers, and if so, why?

2) How should the citizens of Texas or the U.S. respond to Perry's efforts?

3) Does Perry have a reasonable chance of being nominated? Elected? Will his penhant for prayer help in either case?

[Wyvern]

I'm sure it was for you, apparently you enjoy posting juvenile, unintelligable content in a subforum you seem to know very little about.

WP you did notice in the OP it did say this thread was to be taken somewhat tongue in cheek didn't you? As far as being unintelligable I had no problem understanding what is being said by both you and SS. It sounds like you do not like juvenile humor but like it or not much of the best humor is juvenile and considering the state of the world any chance at a bit of levity should be cherished. As the old saying goes all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

You just do a very poor job at trying to be funny. Some people are just naturally funny, others desperately try to be funny and fail. But I suppose when you percieve another person to be unintelligent, you like sinking to their level, don't ya? I'm sure it isn't hard for you either, since you classify anything you disagree with as fundy, unintelligent, 'crazy' or 'stupid.'

You mean like how you automatically classify anything you disagree with as being liberal, progressive, communist, socialist, unintelligible or juvenile?

Much of what you do is prohibited by the forum rules, as indicated by your current status. But along with that you cry about ad hominems but also dish them out, nothing worse than a hypocrite.

I don't see how your complaints about ad homs and then throwing more out is appreciably less hypocritical.

Cause you can't, even when challenged to do so. Here's one more chance to save yourself 'face.' Do you have any valid criticism of Bachmann and her positions? Or will you admit that you lack any real understanding of Current Events, Politics and Economics and thus cannot issue a criticism. If that's the case, which it seems to be, I can understand why you would try to cover it up with a failed attempt at humor.

You mean other than Bachman thought it would be a good idea for our nation to go into default rather than come to an agreement not just with democrats but even her own fellow republicans? I've said it before and more than likely will again, if a politician refuses to compromise they shouldn't go into politics in the first place. Politics is the art of compromise and I would say refusing to compromise in any way while being a politician is crazy.

At least I admit mine was not exatly scholarly, in my case for a change.

Excessive hubris at its very best.

How is this a demonstration of hubris? Admitting to a shortcoming is about as far from hubris as you can get.

- Define vular language.

Your vocabularly and spelling deficencies aren't my problem. But please, continue typing the way you do as you will be continually publicly exposing your defecencies.

You really shouldn't be complaining about the spelling that one person uses when you can't even keep your spelling consistant inside of two sentences.

Yet ANOTHER unsubstantiated claim functioning as an ad hominum.

There you go whining about ad hominema when you yourself have dished out ad hominems. What is really funny about your post is not your failed attempt at humor, but your double standards.

I don't see how your standards are any different other than he came into this thread with the intention of being humorous while you came here to attack.

[Slopeshoulder]

After reading what you have poorly written, I'd say this post is even more immature and juvenile than Goats.

But it was GREAT fun!!!!

I'm sure it was for you,

Then you both understand english and believe my account. I had wondered.

apparently you enjoy posting juvenile, unintelligable content in a subforum

Again, substantiate juvenile. So far, just a repeated ad hominem.
And if you consider it untelligible, perhaps you need to be tested for cognitive decline? is this really the word you want to use, or it is just another WP style pot shot?

you seem to know very little about.

substantiate or retract.

BTW, from what high horse do you get to define what is immature and juvenile, when just a few years ago your were technically, objectively, literally, and demonstrably both?

1)The Juvenile, Irrelevant Analogy
2)The use of Juvenile terms, such as 'crazy' and 'stupid.' But for you, it's a step up from the terms you usually write.
3) The one liners, your failure to address the topic in any way, shape or form.

You've merely reasserted your unsubstantiated opinion. You haven't answered my question.

I don't care what you look like. If you think otherwise post an intelligent argument, not this waste.

Seems someone lacks a sense of humor. And why would I respond with intelligence to a post to which I impute no intelligence? You missed the point grasshopper, and a learning opportunity was missed.

You just do a very poor job at trying to be funny.

Opinion noted.
In real life , I'm famous for my sense of humor. I have people crying laughing every other day, and breaking up every single day. A waitress had to find a sub two nights ago because she couldn't function after something I said. Really. It's a gift. But I refuse to go pro. And i don't show it here much at all, certainly not in this thread beyond a piquant quip.

Some people are just naturally funny, others desperately try to be funny and fail.

A jejune remark. I think we are all tracking with you though.

But I suppose when you percieve another person to be unintelligent, you like sinking to their level, don't ya?

Wrong. I referred to a post to which I imputed no intelligence. I made no accusation beyond that. Get your facts straight. Or did you, um, already forget what i wrote?

I'm sure it isn't hard for you either, since you classify anything you disagree with as fundy, unintelligent, 'crazy' or 'stupid.'

That's not true. Another unsubstaniated claim. I merely use these words when they apply. I do not use them for many things i disagree with. Again, substantiate or retract.

It's apparent, from the base and sordid words you always use,

Define sordid. Try to use a dictionary.
Prove that I always use sordid words, or retract.

Yea, try using a dictionary.

I asked you first.

You need one to supplement your vocabularly which seems to be severely empty.

Wow. Punkish, thuggish and beneath contempt. and wrong. I did 760 on the SAT and have added words ever since (34 years). Now we're just entering the crazy zone.

Just because you may not like my words is no reason to call me names and make unsubstantiated claims.

Where did I call you names? Cite or retract. Or ignore, which is what everybody will be anticipating.

Now you're the one being funny.

And substantiate that you know what everybody is anticipating.

you don't have any right to call others crazy and stupid.

Crazy and stupid are objective and definable categories, so yes I do and yes I can. But Otseng disagrees, in this forum, so I defer. This ties my hands in assessing you, a limit that for some reason has not yet been imposed upon you regarding me. But one can live in faith and hope.

Much of what you do is prohibited by the forum rules, as indicated by your current status.

Isn't referencing this status, which I took to make a point about another poster, who I believe to be insane, against the rules? Should be.

But along with that you cry

Cry is an flammatory word. I don't use it. You shouldn't either.

about ad hominems

I point them out and report them.

but also dish them out, nothing worse than a hypocrite.

No my claims are able to be substantiated. That's the difference between an argument and an ad hominem. You don't see it, but that's "your problem."
BTW, you just called me a name, and without evidence. Doh!

I'd ask why you call Michele Bachmann crazy, but it would be a waste since I doubt you have any intelligent criticism of her policies and positions.

And I doubt you would recognize any such I offered.

Cause you can't, even when challenged to do so.

Upon what evidence do you make the claim that i can't? I actually said something else, to wit, that i don't think you would follow or countenance my legitimate arguments, based on a close reading of your many posts, and therefore do not wish to waste my time.

Here's one more chance to save yourself 'face.'

My face is intact. You however may wish to locate a mirror.

Do you have any valid criticism of Bachmann and her positions?

GOD YES! HELLO!!

Or will you admit that you lack any real understanding of Current Events, Politics and Economics and thus cannot issue a criticism.

With what evidence would you begin to presume to define the limits of my knowledge and expertise, and so broadly? Are you serious? Lordy. Fallacies a -poppin'!!
Why would I admit such a thing if it isn't true?
You have set up an fallacious and erroneous condition that has no reality outside your own mind. Do you imagine that I jump to your call?
Also, and BTW, it's off topic.

If that's the case, which it seems to be, I can understand why you would try to cover it up with a failed attempt at humor.

OK, now this is unintelligible.

How's it ironic? Considering your status on this forum along with the vulgar language you constantly feel a need to invoke, you really don't have the right to judge other users.

- It's ironic because, um, you called goat immature etc and then posted in a similir manner; i quoted both examples.

It comes at no surprise that you get the basic facts wrong. I called Goat's post immature, and you quoted nothing that shows how my post is similar to Goats.

In your estimation. But readers may disagree. Or you could go find braveheart if you need an amen corner.

At least I admit mine was not exatly scholarly, in my case for a change.

Excessive hubris at its very best.

Yes, I thought so. Thanks for noticing.

- Define vular language.

Your vocabularly and spelling deficencies aren't my problem. But please, continue typing the way you do as you will be continually publicly exposing your defecencies.

My vocabulary is demonstrably great. I not only know a lot of words, I actually use them properly.
But you didn't answer my question. you dodged behind a typo. How can I take you seriously, or someday start to?
AND, regarding my typos, as I have admitted and apologized for before, I have an eye-motor disability that undermines my proofreadiugn skills. (It also undermines my ability to sight read music at a pro level, which is why I am not a NY studio or pit player; it has caused me a lot of anguish).
And it is NOT nice to mock the disabled in any version of civil or christian ethics of which I am aware. Shame on you.

I used genuine vulgar language here once, purposely, and got yelled at. Prove where else I have used it.

Again, your personal defecencies aren't my problem.

What deficiencies?

The fact

What fact?

that you lack high standards and possess extremely low standards when it comes to rhetoric and writing is your problem, one that you apparently don't care to much about.

Inaccurate and a vile personal attack. My god, WP, you are really something. "Have you no decency sir, at long last"?
There must be some kind of award for sentences like that. The punk award or something. Shameless and shamful.

Yet ANOTHER unsubstantiated claim functioning as an ad hominum.

There you go whining about ad hominema when you yourself have dished out ad hominems. What is really funny about your post is not your failed attempt at humor, but your double standards.

No, as noted above, you fail to see the distinctions between trenchent criticism and true personal attacks. But I guess that might be your "deficiency."

And then you add 3 new ad hominems. HELLO, HELLO...TESTING...IS THIS ON...ARE OTSENG AND THE TEAM ASLEEP?

Now, what were we debating about? I forget, but I'll state that you're wrong (laugh it up son, thems the jokes).

You wanna know who I admire? GOAT. Because, among other things, he's wise enough to ignore you and not care what you have say about it. I hereby join his ranks and leave to your exhibitionist crowing, AKA "whining." While you do so, I shall spend the rest of my day picking up a new boutique bass, walking in perfect weather through montains to the ocean, going to a great new pan-asian place I just discovered, enjoying a romantic interlude or two, and seeing Tree of Life. If you want other reasons for my absence to help you "save face." Should you ever decide to rise above schoolyard goading, lemme know an i'll check out your stuff.

ahhh...since moving to california, there are so many fewer flies to swat, that this at least has helped to fill the void.

[Wyvern]

Now back to the OP. I think it's obvious that Rick Perry is a very dangerous man, everything he publicly prays for he gets the exact opposite. Has he ever publicly said god bless America? I don't know but I bet he has and it explains why our nation is in the condition it's in.

[WinePusher]

apparently you enjoy posting juvenile, unintelligable content in a subforum

Again, substantiate juvenile. So far, just a repeated ad hominem.

Do you need something other than your own admittance?

After reading what you have poorly written, I'd say this post is even more immature and juvenile than Goats.

But it was GREAT fun!!!!

Doesn't get any better than that.

And if you consider it untelligible, perhaps you need to be tested for cognitive decline? is this really the word you want to use, or it is just another WP style pot shot?

Yea, your post consisted of name calling, blanketed statements and inane analogies. This particular subforum has a particularly high standard of debate along with the Science and Religion subforum, there is no need for you to bring down this standard to such a low level. If you had actually presented logical arguments and written opinions on the topic subject, you'd have some standing. But you decided to take the 'low road,' try to be a funny man and derail this thread with your intention to 'mess' around with another user. If you have legitimate criticisms than post them, you and I have had somewhat reasonable discussions about Christianity in the past and your 'ideas' are intriguing, I don't dismiss them right off the bat as you do with me.

you seem to know very little about.

substantiate or retract.

Pay attention since it's clear that you aren't: Post 4.

1)The Juvenile, Irrelevant Analogy
2)The use of Juvenile terms, such as 'crazy' and 'stupid.' But for you, it's a step up from the terms you usually write.
3) The one liners, your failure to address the topic in any way, shape or form.

You've merely reasserted your unsubstantiated opinion. You haven't answered my question.

I don't know why you're having such as hard time distinguishing between fact an opinion. Do you deny that those 3 factors were incorporated into your post 4?

I'm sure it isn't hard for you either, since you classify anything you disagree with as fundy, unintelligent, 'crazy' or 'stupid.'

That's not true. Another unsubstaniated claim. I merely use these words when they apply. I do not use them for many things i disagree with. Again, substantiate or retract.

Yea, try using a dictionary. You need one to supplement your vocabularly which seems to be severely empty.

Wow. Punkish, thuggish and beneath contempt. Now we're just entering the crazy zone.

To what extent are you trying to expose your double standards, Slopeshoulder? You've already done a magnificent job so far, and with each passing post you continue to expose your double standards, but enough is enough.

Where did I call you names? Cite or retract. Or ignore, which is what everybody will be anticipating.

Now you're the one being funny.

And substantiate that you know what everybody is anticipating.

Heh, expected you to go down the route of 'ignore.'

I'd ask why you call Michele Bachmann crazy, but it would be a waste since I doubt you have any intelligent criticism of her policies and positions.

And I doubt you would recognize any such I offered.

Cause you can't, even when challenged to do so.

Upon what evidence do you make the claim that i can't? i said somethign else, to wit, that i don't think you would follow or countenance my legitimate arguments, based on a close reading of your many posts, and therefore do not wish to waste my time.

Here's one more chance to save yourself 'face.'

My face is intact. You however may wish to locate a mirror.

Heh, you don't even know what a metaphor is.

Or will you admit that you lack any real understanding of Current Events, Politics and Economics and thus cannot issue a criticism.

With what evidence would you begin to presume to define the limits of my knowledge and expertise?

Post 4. Seriously, pay attention. There is a discrepency in knowledge and expertise between a liberal like you on the subject of Current Events, Politics and Economics and a liberal like nursebenjamin.

It comes at no surprise that you get the basic facts wrong. I called Goat's post immature, and you quoted nothing that shows how my post is similar to Goats.

In your estimation. But readers may disagree. Or you could go find braveheart if you need an amen corner.

You dodge the point (no suprise), with some weird reference to Braveheart. Unfortunately for you Braveheart is not relevant to this thread, if Braveheart is on your mind go start a personal dialouge with him. Braveheart is not relevant to this.

My vocabulary is demonstrably great. I not only know a lot of word, i actually use them properly.

You've demonstrated the exact opposite by challenging words you clearly don't know the definitions of.

AND, regarding my typos, as I have admitted and apologized for before, I have an eye-motor disability that undermines my proofreadiugn skills.
And it is NOT nice to mock the disabled in any version of civil or christian ethics of which I am aware. Shame on you.

You're sounding more incoherant than you already were. You injected the issue of grammar into this thread, which seems to be a common cop-out amoung people like you when they begin to lose an argument, and when you are exposed for the very same things you condemn you 'whine' about it. Shame on you.

that you lack high standards and possess extremely low standards when it comes to rhetoric and writing is your problem, one that you apparently don't care to much about.

Inaccurate and a vile personal attack. My god, WP, you are really something. "Have you no decency sir, at long last"?

Slopeshoulder, the fact that you whine when your ad hominems are met with ad hominems is telling. You're basically the same as the bully on the playground who pushes other people around with posts like post 4 and 5 and expects no retaliation in return, but when an individual does retaliate with the same things you post you begin to 'whine' about it.

And then you add 3 new ad hominems. HELLO, HELLO...TESTING...IS THIS ON...ARE OTSENG AND THE TEAM ASLEEP?

Heh, your performance in this post is definitely funny. There is a report button at the top of each post, I have utilized it several times in this specific thread to call in moderators. You can do the same as protocal requires, or continue shouoting and screaming.

You wanna know who I admire? GOAT. Because, among other things, he's wise enough to ignore you and not care what you have say about it. I hereby join his ranks and leave to your exhibitionist crowing, AKA "whining."

You really need to pay attention. I was addressing micatala's post and debate questions, you jump in and address me with two juvenile posts. I would never do the same to you, especially in this subforu, because you have demonstrated no knowledge or comprehension on any of these topics. It would just be a waste of my time that could have gone to discussing an issue with a more intelligent user.

[WinePusher]

I really don't think I was talking to you Wyvern, but I can understand why you would want to intervene since your liberal fellow here seems to be incapable of explaining his own position.

WP you did notice in the OP it did say this thread was to be taken somewhat tongue in cheek didn't you?

Maybe if it had come from a less reputable user (a few come to mind). But considering micatalas frequent participation in this particular subforum, and his appreciation for the subject of Politics and Religion, I thought his intention was to actually debate this subject. This same subject is being debated on another site which is the equivalent, if not superior, counterpart to this site. But we'll let micatala speak for himself and his own intentions.

As far as being unintelligable I had no problem understanding what is being said by both you and SS. It sounds like you do not like juvenile humor but like it or not much of the best humor is juvenile and considering the state of the world any chance at a bit of levity should be cherished.

No, he can continue to pollute Christianity and Apologetics with that type of nonsense. This subforum, along with the Science subforum, has some very good threads and debates and draws a more intelligent and smaller crowd due to the the selective nature of the subforum. You of all people should know that. I don't have tolerance for someone who rarely participates in this subforum, and then all of a sudden jumps in and ruins a thread trying to be a funny man.

[Jester]

Moderator Intervention

This has turned into a flame war. Little is being said about the topic, and a great deal of attacks on members are being made from all sides.
To make this very clear:

Wyvern, though I appreciate you trying to shift the conversation back on topic, preceding that with a lengthy post full of personal comments is against the rules.

Slopeshoulder and Winepusher, each of you should re-read his own comments, noting how many personal attacks are to be found in them. You each have reported the other for incivility, apparently believing that the same rule does not apply to all.
So, allow me to clarify that the rule is absolute. Not "starting it", "being right", or other such excuses are not acceptable reasons for incivility. Nor does incivility do anything to convince either your opponent or those of us happening by.

As no one involved seems to be trying to have a civil debate, I am locking the thread.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.