I need to vent on this Duck Dynasty "Controversy".

Oklahomahawk said:
Do they taste at all like wine or is that just how they're prepared?? I know mead used to be very popular in England, among other European countries, I've just never had any.
Click to expand...

like wine but you don't drink it from a wine glass. In Germany, you drink it from a stein, just like beer. Even though the alcohol content does not rise above 15% unless you cheat, it can sneak up on you like champagne.
 
AerchAngel said:
Because what he said is a non issue. My parents would back him up actually. They are Democrats but not liberal, that still baffles me, well most blacks are. So what he said about homosexuals is what they are tuned to, not the stab he said about blacks. Personally, it didn't faze me nor my parents on what he said.
Click to expand...

Speaking of them being Dems but not particularly liberal it could just be they see through the Repub party too well to join in, or maybe it's just force of habit, you know old habits are hard to break. Also, there's that old saying of Will Rogers (still one of the smartest and wittiest men ever) who said "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat".

Ironically that better describes the Repubs these days than it does the Dems, scary huh???
 
AerchAngel said:
like wine but you don't drink it from a wine glass. In Germany, you drink it from a stein, just like beer. Even though the alcohol content does not rise above 15% unless you cheat, it can sneak up on you like champagne.
Click to expand...

I guess you guys are going to have to send me some when it's done... :Drool: AA, I sent you a PM by the way.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Do they taste at all like wine or is that just how they're prepared?? I know mead used to be very popular in England, among other European countries, I've just never had any.
Click to expand...

It really depends on who makes it I think sometimes mead is rough, sometimes its dangerously smooth. It all depends on who is making it and their skills. Good mead is like wine, if you like good wine you'll like mead. It's complex but simple. Beer for example is much more complex if done right.

I've more or less mastered beer about as much as possible. I'm moving along to wine, meads and similar.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Speaking of them being Dems but not particularly liberal it could just be they see through the Repub party too well to join in, or maybe it's just force of habit, you know old habits are hard to break. Also, there's that old saying of Will Rogers (still one of the smartest and wittiest men ever) who said "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat".

Ironically that better describes the Repubs these days than it does the Dems, scary huh???
Click to expand...

One guy on the other board ask me why I am not a Republican.

I laughed and kept laughing...........................

He was like WTF?

I told him I would never join any party, they both are stupid, irresponsible and be the death of our country.
 
zitothebrave said:
It really depends on who makes it I think sometimes mead is rough, sometimes its dangerously smooth. It all depends on who is making it and their skills. Good mead is like wine, if you like good wine you'll like mead. It's complex but simple. Beer for example is much more complex if done right.

I've more or less mastered beer about as much as possible. I'm moving along to wine, meads and similar.
Click to expand...

Beer is hard to make, extremely hard. I have not been successful yet. I made two batches of Keystone Light and something similar to Natty light, it made you go to the bathroom.....often.

So I gave up and will stick to liquor/wine and mead.
 
AerchAngel said:
One guy on the other board ask me why I am not a Republican.

I laughed and kept laughing...........................

He was like WTF?

I told him I would never join any party, they both are stupid, irresponsible and be the death of our country.
Click to expand...

I would never join any club that would have me as a member.... Groucho Marx
 
AerchAngel said:
Beer is hard to make, extremely hard. I have not been successful yet. I made two batches of Keystone Light and something similar to Natty light, it made you go to the bathroom.....often.

So I gave up and will stick to liquor/wine and mead.
Click to expand...

I can probably tell you why it made you do that. When you naturally bottle condition your beer yeast and other things sit at the bottom of your bottle. Those things have that effect o you. If you don't want that effect you don't pour the little bit out at the end. There's an art to pouring homebrew that doesn't give you the ****s. Of course the nutrients in those yeast are good for you and taking ****s isn't really bad. One guy on my homebrew boards when he drinks the beers then pours the remnants into a glass and he chugs that for nutritional value.

I have made lots of great beer so far and I really look forward to making some more. Next year or maybe 2 years from now, my brother and I will move on to All-Grain brewing.I'm comfortable with it, I have some reservations with it but I'm ready to go for it.
 
AerchAngel said:
never got it
Click to expand...

Hmm it seems to have just vanished. I'll try to recompose it tomorrow, it's no big deal just something about a student I had in class a few semesters back, something you said reminded me of her, black lady, about my age, maybe a couple of years younger, former teacher, social worker (both with kids nobody else wanted), etc. great lady I loved hearing her perspective on the stuff we covered in American Government.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Hmm it seems to have just vanished. I'll try to recompose it tomorrow, it's no big deal just something about a student I had in class a few semesters back, something you said reminded me of her, black lady, about my age, maybe a couple of years younger, former teacher, social worker (both with kids nobody else wanted), etc. great lady I loved hearing her perspective on the stuff we covered in American Government.
Click to expand...

Send it on Facebook if you can.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Hmm it seems to have just vanished. I'll try to recompose it tomorrow, it's no big deal just something about a student I had in class a few semesters back, something you said reminded me of her, black lady, about my age, maybe a couple of years younger, former teacher, social worker (both with kids nobody else wanted), etc. great lady I loved hearing her perspective on the stuff we covered in American Government.
Click to expand...

At the University of Iowa my teacher thought I should teach History or Political Science because I had a knack for it. I told him no. I don't have the patience. I think they want more of my race in the ranks to teach fields that they don't have a good perspective of like black history, blacks in the political world.

I declined teaching even here, even programming as a sub at the local tech/university. I am a bad influence and I admit that so that is why I don't do it.
 
Jumping in for Fearless Leader: y'all need to tone this tripartite flirting down a bit.
 
jpx7 said:
Jumping in for Fearless Leader: y'all need to tone this tripartite flirting down a bit.
Click to expand...

hatersgonnahate.jpg
 
Oklahomahawk said:
And it's hard for me to completely comprehend, and even harder to explain that God takes sex very seriously, unlike we humans who so often jump in and out of bed with the same extreme commitment with which we decide which shirt we're wearing today, they just can't understand why I have the right to tell someone else who to bang (or who not to bang). The answer is very simple my friends, I DON'T have that right, but that doesn't mean God doesn't. I've long said that I don't understand why so many Christians make such a big deal out of non-hetero-sexual intercourse, and ignore so many other sins. I think our lack of speaking out on some sins and concentrating on certain other ones has pretty much watered down (to say the least) our credibility on the subject. Maybe we have it coming in some ways.
Click to expand...

This is what I was giving an "amen" for Hawk - all of it.

I'll check my messages.
 
Link - The Atlantic

...Missing in the controversy over A&E’s handling of its golden goose—or duck, rather—is the fact that the real conflict here is not between Robertson and A&E; it is between *** activists and a solid majority of Christians who believe homosexual acts are wrong. As indicated above, Robertson’s views are hardly anomalous. Christians may disagree on the details, but the Bible strongly condemns homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments; the marriage model of one man and one woman is first given by God in Genesis 2 and reiterated by Jesus in Matthew 19; and in Romans 1 the Apostle Paul denounces homosexuality as a hallmark of a degenerate culture. The point here isn’t that you have to believe any of this, but many Christians do believe it and feel morally bound to believe it.

Instead of acknowledging this tension, however, A&E, GLAAD, and their supporters have responded with disingenuous expressions of shock and horror. And it matters that it's disingenuous, because if they actually acknowledged that there is a genuine conflict between orthodox Christianity and homosexual sex (along with several forms of heterosexual sex) they would have to confront head-on the fact that calling for a boycott or pressuring for Robertson's suspension tells orthodox Christians that their religion is no longer acceptable, and that’s not a very politically correct thing to do. Right now, they are trying to weasel out of it by characterizing Robertson as a backwoods bigot who takes his moral cues from Deliverance rather than from a straightforward reading of the Bible and the historic teachings of the Christian religion.

Speaking on the issue of tolerance, mega-church pastor and bestselling author Rick Warren observed:

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement. The message A&E’s decision sends is that there is zero tolerance on television for Christians who are conscientious objectors to homosexuality. More than that, it implicitly suggests that the campaign for tolerance has advanced to a campaign to pressure 45 percent of Americans to recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned.

We stand at a crossroads. The country must decide. Is the endgame here to be that orthodox Christians will henceforth have no voice within their own culture? If so, does this mean we have become a nation of bullies, forcing conformity while calling it tolerance?
 
BedellBrave said:
Link - The Atlantic

...Missing in the controversy over A&E’s handling of its golden goose—or duck, rather—is the fact that the real conflict here is not between Robertson and A&E; it is between *** activists and a solid majority of Christians who believe homosexual acts are wrong. As indicated above, Robertson’s views are hardly anomalous. Christians may disagree on the details, but the Bible strongly condemns homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments; the marriage model of one man and one woman is first given by God in Genesis 2 and reiterated by Jesus in Matthew 19; and in Romans 1 the Apostle Paul denounces homosexuality as a hallmark of a degenerate culture. The point here isn’t that you have to believe any of this, but many Christians do believe it and feel morally bound to believe it.

Instead of acknowledging this tension, however, A&E, GLAAD, and their supporters have responded with disingenuous expressions of shock and horror. And it matters that it's disingenuous, because if they actually acknowledged that there is a genuine conflict between orthodox Christianity and homosexual sex (along with several forms of heterosexual sex) they would have to confront head-on the fact that calling for a boycott or pressuring for Robertson's suspension tells orthodox Christians that their religion is no longer acceptable, and that’s not a very politically correct thing to do. Right now, they are trying to weasel out of it by characterizing Robertson as a backwoods bigot who takes his moral cues from Deliverance rather than from a straightforward reading of the Bible and the historic teachings of the Christian religion.

Speaking on the issue of tolerance, mega-church pastor and bestselling author Rick Warren observed:

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement. The message A&E’s decision sends is that there is zero tolerance on television for Christians who are conscientious objectors to homosexuality. More than that, it implicitly suggests that the campaign for tolerance has advanced to a campaign to pressure 45 percent of Americans to recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned.

We stand at a crossroads. The country must decide. Is the endgame here to be that orthodox Christians will henceforth have no voice within their own culture? If so, does this mean we have become a nation of bullies, forcing conformity while calling it tolerance?
Click to expand...

Just a question for you, Bedell, as a fellow Christian n all that.

I know several people 'round my age of our same religious persuasion who are of the cohabiting sort (and if they're not, most definitely practitioners of the pre-marital variety), who also feel that marriage (or at least the word anyway) should be kept to a man and a woman.

My question...or statement...or feeling is this. Maybe I'm wrong on this (in a religious context), but although I find homosexuality (the practice of it anyway) wrong, I find it just as wrong as I do pre or post-marital sex (among many other sins). So in that regard, when I hear/see my fellow peers/Christians expressing their disdain for g ays, I can't help but think of the disconnect that I feel with their words vis a vis their behavior that way. Know what I mean?

n to be honest, as far as marriage goes, I almost feel like "us straights" pretty much opened the door towards changing its definition (here's to you, divorce rates!). Not saying that's necessarily a good thing, but I'm at the point where if homosexuals can provide a better example of marriage for everyone else, then why the F not? Haha, and as a religious person, maybe I should repent for that last statement. But as a person who's watched (and studied) human behavior, I'm kinda all for anything that would put the mono back in monogamy. Like a boss. #isthishowthecoolkidssayit?

TL;DR, I wish everyone (including them hawt homos) could find themselves a scintillating single selection of the opposite sex (while raising equally well-adjusted children!), but until then, I can't help but be supportive of something that might in turn be supportive of the *ideal* of marriage, and the one-on-one commitment that comes with it. Word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top