GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eh, I wouldn't call Santorum a slut-shamer; I don't think he has the kind of 'feminazis are threatening my rightful place in society' hangups that term usually implies when ascribed to men, his social conservatism seems more holistic than that. Anyhow, would it really be any less surprising for conservative women to favor Newt Gingrich? And obviously Romney was never going to do well with those voters for whom 'being a strong social conservative' is high priority, and there are a lot of them in MS and AL.



but slut-shaming certainly became a big part of the contraception "debate" -- Santorum wasn't doing it himself, but he was clearly located on the side of the slut-shamers, especially given his clear and repeated opposition to sex outside of marriage, abortion, and issues wiht birth control.

like so many things, i think it's an identity issue, and less about a specific position than where a particular candidate lies on the belief spectrum and what your vote for him says about you and your cultural identity.
 
I think you need to stop being so butthurt and get over it.

I am genuinely interested in the ways in which you perceive justice and politics to be intertwined, particularly insofar as Ron Paul in concerned, since in his case an excellent argument can be made that his strict constitutionalism is actually contrary to the generally understood concept of justice.
 
Really? Is this what you "stand for"?

He's mad because I was annoyed by an image that was incredibly biased and didn't speak the whole picture. I never chose a side, I just want objectivity in something like that. He can't get over it and so he chose to pick at my post. Yes, that's something he should get over.
 
He's mad because I was annoyed by an image that was incredibly biased and didn't speak the whole picture. I never chose a side, I just want objectivity in something like that. He can't get over it and so he chose to pick at my post. Yes, that's something he should get over.

On Interference, unless you know for sure, presume a poster is female. You'll be right most of the time.
 
Popmartijn said:
On Interference, unless you know for sure, presume a poster is female. You'll be right most of the time.

It would also be wise to not presume to know a poster's true intentions if you've had limited interaction with them.
 
you stand for things like this?

well, okay then.

Yeah, that article isn't biased one bit. Read the opening statement and get back to me. "nut-job Libertarian views". Yes, I believe in Libertarian ideology. Clearly whoever wrote that blog does not. That's established in the first paragraph. Furthermore, the writer continues on about 'us left-wing types'. I'm not a 'left-wing type'. I'm an independent Libertarian with socially liberal and economically conservative viewpoints.

Yes, Ron Paul is absolutely extreme. I understand that. But the crap flowing through that blog is just full of crap. It's America's favorite thing to mock or skew Ron Paul's views in order to devalue him.

But I mean we can break it down point by point:

1. Civil Rights Act - Ron Paul's case on repealing it. You don't actually think he'd be successful on something like that, do you? He's merely making a point that you can't force morality on somebody. You can't control them. Ron Paul has always been like that. Did you even read the link provided in that very blog?

2. American Disabilities Act

Okay I'm not going to go point to point here because I'll be saying the same thing. He's not some discriminatory animal like this article is trying to paste him as. If you bother to read any of the logic, he's about stripping down the government. He's an absolute extremist. He's not against the ADA because he doesn't like disabled people. He's against the ADA because it's telling people what they can and cannot do.

God, again. Did you even watch the video to decide for yourself, or did you just read the paragraph and accept everything it said and look at Paul with a dirty look? He promotes individual liberty. 'If a business chooses to mistreat its customers... no. Don't go. Boycott them'. It's fundamental thinking, where you have the freedom to choose morality. If you don't, others have the freedom to judge you.

Yes, it's extremist thinking. No, it would not see the light of day through Congress. That's just Ron Paul being Ron Paul. Being emphatic about his views.

This article paints the picture of Ron Paul as some Nazi. It's a joke. It refuses to tell the whole picture, or to see it from both sides. I can see it from both sides. I know Ron Paul is by no means ideal or perfect. There's not enough balance in his ideology. It's too extreme. But come on, I continue to read more and more from that page and it's just worse and worse. It concluded that he thinks 'Global Warming is a hoax'. Small conclusion for a deep thought, because that certainly does not tell the whole story of his viewpoint on Global Warming.

But more importantly, all of this is a bunch of shit because if you ask Ron Paul, he'll tell you that he's in favor of state's rights more than anything else. Cases like abortion, which Ron Paul is against, are cases where Ron Paul will say (and has said) that you should let the states decide.

The more that is said in that article, the more that continues to be ignored. He's against seat belts. Why? Why would somebody be against something that only saves lives? WHY WOULD YOU BUY A CAR WITHOUT SEAT BELTS? He's not against seat belts for God's sake. He's against the government telling us we cannot have a car without seat belts. Oh look. The article calls him homophobic. Yet the links provided in the same article state that he's for gay rights. And then the next point calls him a racist, yet the same article that was cited on the previous point clearly states that he was not.

But I'm not here to convince you that Ron Paul is a good guy or not. I don't know why I typed so much. You're entitled to your viewpoints. I'm entitled to mine. You're entitled to vote for whoever you please (but that would be hard for you, you're Australian, no?). I enjoy objectivity. I do not expect you to believe that the objective side of this article is good. I do. You don't have to. That's an opinion. That's your viewpoints. But when you add bias and skew things, tailor make them to your tastes, etc. yes, you can paint Ron Paul as a lunatic all you'd like. That's really not the case.
 
On Interference, unless you know for sure, presume a poster is female. You'll be right most of the time.

Ah, you're right. I apologize, sorry anitram. Stupid assumption on my part, should've checked.

And also, apologies coolian. New Zealander, not Australian. But you could very well be American, IDK.
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
He's mad because I was annoyed by an image that was incredibly biased and didn't speak the whole picture. I never chose a side, I just want objectivity in something like that. He can't get over it and so he chose to pick at my post. Yes, that's something he should get over.

Oh you've definitely shown your bias and chosen sides don't fool yourself. From your misguided defense of Ron Paul down to your homophobic insult, you've made it pretty clear.
 
I think it might be useful for all of us to review other members profiles before we start engaging in ways that really don't make positive contributions to this forum.

. I know Ron Paul is by no means ideal or perfect. There's not enough balance in his ideology. It's too extreme. .

I think that statement should be enough for others not to make you explain or defend all things Ron Paul.

I am glad you are taking the time to post your opinions in here. We are a better forum with more participants and more views.

A suggestion, we are not required to respond to every reply.

My recommendation, is to engage with posters that treat you and others in a reasonable manner.
 
Oh you've definitely shown your bias and chosen sides don't fool yourself. From your misguided defense of Ron Paul down to your homophobic insult, you've made it pretty clear.

Of course I have a bias. Which if why I ended off with that last bit. There's still a difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Slandering someone is almost always straying away from objectivity and ignoring actuality and the facts. Take some of those reasons listed about Ron Paul, for example.

Drawing conclusions of infinite value based upon a finite occurrence isn't fair. You can't say 'Ron Paul is against the rights of disabled people' because he's against the ADA. He's against the ADA because he's against big government. He's all for letting the people decide for themselves what's right and what's wrong. I'm sure if you ask his personal opinion, he'd say he's pro equal rights for all people.

It's the same thing as drawing the conclusion that because this graph of the NASDAQ was low at Bush's end (incredibly finite) and high after Obama's run through, Obama is automatically better for the economy. That's a pretty damn big conclusion to draw (or insinuate) based upon a mere 2 year spread of the NASDAQ charts.

I'm sure at this point you must think I'm a hardcore anti-Obama-ite. Look at me defending Bush and defending Paul. Well, defending Bush wasn't the point. And defending Paul wasn't the point (it just so happens that I would also defend Paul in a biased manner as well). The point was defending objectivity of an argument.

I'd love for you to tell me how my defense was 'misguided' though. I believe the offense is 'misguided', filled with accusations and assumptions.

Also, homophobic insult? You're clearly misreading or misunderstanding something. You could take all of the members on this board and I guarantee you I'd be one of the last people to go with a homophobic insult.
 
What was "butthurt" in a reference to?

This seems entirely inappropriate of me to be citing UrbanDictionary.com, but if you really believe that's a homophobic insult... well...

Urban Dictionary: ButtHurt

Excuse my absolute vulgarity here but I'm pretty sure both men and women can take it in the ass.

You're picking at straws to call me a homophobe here, and at least in my head... you sound ridiculous. Know more of your subject before you fire our accusations like that, please.
 
Lucky,

you should turn yourself into the police,
you are obviously guilty of a 'hate' crime.

butthurt plus you thought she was a dude!!!!


you have been exposed, you may be like Mel Gibson and not even realize you are bigot, this could be buried deep inside your subconscious or black heart.


or, option 2.

My recommendation, is to engage with posters that treat you and others in a reasonable manner.
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
Excuse my absolute vulgarity here but I'm pretty sure both men and women can take it in the ass.

You're picking at straws to call me a homophobe here, and at least in my head... you sound ridiculous. Know more of your subject before you fire our accusations like that, please.
But you thought she was a male at the time you typed that.

I think you're the last person in this thread to lecture someone on knowing their subject.
 
But you thought she was a male at the time you typed that.

I think you're the last person in this thread to lecture someone on knowing their subject.

I should be the last person to lecture someone, despite the fact that I willingly admitted I was wrong when I was wrong. Twice.

We've had an exchange before (in FYM). I don't know why you're doing this, but it's kind of insulting on a personal level. There's no homophobia in my posts, and I would really appreciate if you stop saying that.
 
My recommendation, is to engage with posters that treat you and others in a reasonable manner.

I appreciate the feedback but to be honest cutting communication should be something of last resort. We as people can't continue to better ourselves by turning our heads simply because we disagree or we are not communicating well enough.

There are some things I need to hear, and there are some things he needs to hear for the both of us to have a better picture in front of us.
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
I should be the last person to lecture someone, despite the fact that I willingly admitted I was wrong when I was wrong. Twice.

We've had an exchange before (in FYM). I don't know why you're doing this, but it's kind of insulting on a personal level. There's no homophobia in my posts, and I would really appreciate if you stop saying that.

I'm not doing anything, I just thought it was incredibly inappropriate and insulting to a lot of people on a personal level.
 
Time to let this one drop, guys; it's taking the thread way off course.



p.s. "butthurt" has been used dozens of times before on Interference (do a search) by posters of all genders and political persuasions; this is the first time I've ever seen anyone object to it.
 
I'm not doing anything, I just thought it was incredibly inappropriate.

You're doing exactly what I'm complaining about and drawing a false conclusion based upon some biased evidence! You immediately linked 'butthurt' to gay sex when in fact such a term is used widely, directed towards both males and females. Slightly mean/aggressive way of telling somebody to get over it? Absolutely. But to draw the conclusion that LuckyNumber7 is using homophobic slurs to get his point across because one out of ten uses of that term might be homophobic is just inaccurate, unfair, and wrong.

And I absolutely take that as a personal insult. You apparently know nothing of me, and I don't know why you'd go out on a stretch to call me homophobic.
 
Time to let this one drop, guys; it's taking the thread way off course.



p.s. "butthurt" has been used dozens of times before on Interference (do a search) by posters of all genders and political persuasions; this is the first time I've ever seen anyone object to it.

Sorry, I was in the middle of writing the last response before this came up.
 
p.s. "butthurt" has been used dozens of times before on Interference (do a search) by posters of all genders and political persuasions; this is the first time I've ever seen anyone object to it.

This is true, I just can't ever remember it being used specifically towards a poster, especially one that didn't deserve it.
 
Butthurt is in no way homophobic, at least in any context I've seen it used (scores of times). It's a common Internet expression.
 
Yeah, that article isn't biased one bit. Read the opening statement and get back to me. "nut-job Libertarian views". Yes, I believe in Libertarian ideology. Clearly whoever wrote that blog does not. That's established in the first paragraph. Furthermore, the writer continues on about 'us left-wing types'. I'm not a 'left-wing type'. I'm an independent Libertarian with socially liberal and economically conservative viewpoints.

Yes, Ron Paul is absolutely extreme. I understand that. But the crap flowing through that blog is just full of crap. It's America's favorite thing to mock or skew Ron Paul's views in order to devalue him.

But I mean we can break it down point by point:

1. Civil Rights Act - Ron Paul's case on repealing it. You don't actually think he'd be successful on something like that, do you? He's merely making a point that you can't force morality on somebody. You can't control them. Ron Paul has always been like that. Did you even read the link provided in that very blog?

2. American Disabilities Act

Okay I'm not going to go point to point here because I'll be saying the same thing. He's not some discriminatory animal like this article is trying to paste him as. If you bother to read any of the logic, he's about stripping down the government. He's an absolute extremist. He's not against the ADA because he doesn't like disabled people. He's against the ADA because it's telling people what they can and cannot do.

God, again. Did you even watch the video to decide for yourself, or did you just read the paragraph and accept everything it said and look at Paul with a dirty look? He promotes individual liberty. 'If a business chooses to mistreat its customers... no. Don't go. Boycott them'. It's fundamental thinking, where you have the freedom to choose morality. If you don't, others have the freedom to judge you.

Yes, it's extremist thinking. No, it would not see the light of day through Congress. That's just Ron Paul being Ron Paul. Being emphatic about his views.

This article paints the picture of Ron Paul as some Nazi. It's a joke. It refuses to tell the whole picture, or to see it from both sides. I can see it from both sides. I know Ron Paul is by no means ideal or perfect. There's not enough balance in his ideology. It's too extreme. But come on, I continue to read more and more from that page and it's just worse and worse. It concluded that he thinks 'Global Warming is a hoax'. Small conclusion for a deep thought, because that certainly does not tell the whole story of his viewpoint on Global Warming.

But more importantly, all of this is a bunch of shit because if you ask Ron Paul, he'll tell you that he's in favor of state's rights more than anything else. Cases like abortion, which Ron Paul is against, are cases where Ron Paul will say (and has said) that you should let the states decide.

The more that is said in that article, the more that continues to be ignored. He's against seat belts. Why? Why would somebody be against something that only saves lives? WHY WOULD YOU BUY A CAR WITHOUT SEAT BELTS? He's not against seat belts for God's sake. He's against the government telling us we cannot have a car without seat belts. Oh look. The article calls him homophobic. Yet the links provided in the same article state that he's for gay rights. And then the next point calls him a racist, yet the same article that was cited on the previous point clearly states that he was not.
Here's my problem with Ron Paul: he thinks state and local governments know everything, when they've proven time and time again that they can be just as fucked up as any of the worst decisions made on a national level. There are some issues where the states shouldn't be allowed to recklessly throw away laws for the sake of "individual rights."
 
Butthurt is in no way homophobic, at least in any context I've seen it used (scores of times). It's a common Internet expression.

Well I don't want to get this thread further off topic, and maybe it's a conversation for another day, but just because it's intent is not homophobic or it's a common internet expression does that mean it's not homophobic? It's origins are. To me it's like 'fag', you can argue all you want that your intent is harmless and you use it just like you do the word 'idiot', but the origins as to why 'fag' is used in a deragatory way are homophobic. :shrug:
 
Here's my problem with Ron Paul: he thinks state and local governments know everything, when they've proven time and time again that they can be just as fucked up as any of the worst decisions made on a national level. There are some issues where the states shouldn't be allowed to recklessly throw away laws for the sake of "individual rights."

I think that's a fair conclusion with some thought put into it, and it's certainly a better argument than calling him a homophobic, racist, prejudiced, discriminatory nut who is out to ruin our country. All of those points posted were merely superficial things where one can be quick to draw an unfair conclusion.

The reason why I'm a fan of bringing the power from the national level to the state level is really because I feel as though it brings more power to the people. We elect our representatives to represent us on a federal level. That rarely ever happens, and I feel as though things become less of a game when you bring something like that more to a localized level, and it's easier to hold people accountable. Not to mention the fact that the media has less control of what goes on among all of this (I hate the media).
 
In addition to what PhilsFan said, I have always taken issue with Ron Paul trying to paint himself as a libertarian, when in fact, he is a Republican, he caucuses with the Republicans, votes with them consistently and holds a number of views that would be totally contrary to basic libertarian principles.

His argument for states' rights is not a libertarian argument - it is a question of federalism. A true libertarian would not say to leave abortion rights to the states, because a true libertarian would not see any state encroachment on individual liberty as acceptable. (I picked abortion as the easy one, but you can go down the list of many of his states' rights initiatives and make the same type of argument.)

As an aside I'm also tired of the Tea Party being called the Tea Party - they are Republicans and I am not sure how the branding war was lost there. They vote like Republicans, for Republicans and are Republicans until such a time as they decide to break away and form an independent, third party. Until then, they're the GOP and they should be made to own it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom