|
On March 05 2012 03:34 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 03:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 02:25 liberal wrote:On March 05 2012 02:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:This is the problem with republicans who rag on the "elite" media. You guys don't seem to realize that the current generation of republican politicians say stupid things that warrant such ridicule from the media. Democrats have their share of dumb politicians but the republican party is producing people like bachmann, sarah palin, glenn beck, christine odonnell, etc etc and your surprised that the majority of the media isn't saying nice things about them? Both GOP and democrats are terrible right now, but if you look at it from a relative standpoint, theres so much more impoliteness, vitriol, and hate spewing from the republicans than there are democrats. This is the problem with liberals who justify being assholes with the brilliant argument of "because." You guys don't seem to realize that the current generation of liberals say stupid things that warrant the complaints leveled at you. Conservatives have their fair share of dumb people saying dumb things, but when liberals produce people like Markos Moulitsas, Matt Yglesias, Matt Taibbi, Harry Reid, every other poster at Daily Kos not named Markos Moulitsas, 95% of the writers and commenters at the Huffington Post, etc., you're surprised that you're portrayed as immature assholes? Both conservatives and liberals produce terrible assholes, but if you look at it from a comparative standpoint, there is so much more impoliteness, vitriol, outright lying, and hate spewing from liberals than there is from conservatives. The only difference is that there actually is much, much more impoliteness, vitriol, outright lying, and hate spewing from liberals. The worst you can expect from mainstream conservative publications like the National Review or the Weekly Standard is a squishy kind of disdain, as opposed to the (cheered) regular, sophomoric insults you will find at "respected" liberal publications/shows like the New York Times editorial page, The New York Review of Books, New York Magazine, The New Yorker, Slate.com, Newsweek/Daily Beast (can you imagine National Review leading with a cover story entitled, "Why are critics of Republicans so dumb?" The way Newsbeast did with Andrew Sullivan asking that question about critics of President Obama?), Real Time with Bill Maher, Salon.com, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Young Turks with Cenk Uygur, The Rachel Maddow Show, etc.? You're either a liar or tremendously ignorant if you think that liberals don't engage in more simple name-calling than conservatives in the media outside of daytime talk radio. The only other place conservatives even manage to come close is the internet. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are on Fox News for what, 2 hours a day, compared to the hundred+ daily hours of programming containing liberals calling conservatives racist, misogynist, accusing them of the usually incompatible crimes of stupidity and chicanery, etc., based on lies and the most tendentious of arguments. You can't read, watch, or listen to any liberal outlet without being subjected to a constant barrage of name-calling, strawmen, and general juvenile behavior aimed at conservatives. Just based on reading this thread and others on TL, I have to agree that liberals more often resort to name calling, ad hominem, and straw men. It's really sad to me, and I've been trying to make posts asking people to justify their ideas instead of just calling the other side crazy all the time. It's the IDEAS that matter, not the specific politicians who have endless faults. We should focus on the ideas, not the person, as much as possible. I agree that Rick Santorum is a complete tool and expresses horrible ideas much of the time, but he doesn't represent the entirety of conservative ideology. He simply represents the anti-Romney vote, and the religious fundamentalists. Isn't that completely unfair? I mean this is the Republican Nominations thread. Obviously we're talking about the republicans, so they are going to be the targets. If this was a more balanced thread, like "Obama vs. Romney Thread" or something, then we'd see more attacks on ze liberals. I'm just talking about all the posts that repeat non-arguments like "X is crazy." That seems to be the most common, calling someone "crazy." And I don't care if people think that about one of the Republican nominees, some of their ideas ARE crazy. I just wish people would articulate WHY they think that way instead of relying on lazy attacks like that. I think it's more a numbers thing... There are far more liberals on TL, and so the few conservatives who speak up usually feel the need to explain or justify their reasoning, while the liberals won't catch much slack for just making "lol these people are stupid and crazy" kind of posts. I've criticized those types of mindless posts in the past, and what I get are a bunch of people responding with "but they ARE stupid and crazy." They are missing my point entirely, they need to articulate why they feel that way instead of using it as the premise of their beliefs. I just want this to be a battle of ideas instead of a battle of labels. Personally I think labels are stupid. That might sound funny because my name is liberal, and I guess it is. But people have very different definitions of what a liberal is, especially from one nation to the next. When I say liberal in my posts, I'm referring to what Americans call liberal, because that's become the common meaning here, although that's not what I consider myself with this name. I think labels like "liberal" are just a too vague, but the labels I really think are bad are the kind of "stupid, crazy" labels I was talking about. I'm already ranting so I might as well continue. The political process that goes on, especially in the US, focuses so much on the individuals and not the philosophies. It's like a popularity contest. They focus on people's sex life and their looks and religion and marriage.... All of that is irrelevant to me. The media tries often to label a certain politician as immoral or hypocritical or whatever, and the whole issue of debating what type of society we would like to live in gets lost. And I hate to see that carry over into forums like this one, where people pick a side, and defend their side at all costs and attack the other side at all costs, and forget the ideas are what need to be questioned and fought. I was agreeing with deepelem that these attacks tend to be more frequent from American "liberals" than from conservatives. It feels like such people are more worried about feeling smarter than other people than actually arguing ideas or trying to win people over to their thinking. I respect conservatives who try to argue a position, even if I think the position is stupid. I don't respect liberals who resort to calling something stupid without articulating why. Otherwise the forum because a pointless circle jerk.
This post would be valid if the current candidates running for the GOP nomination didn't have so many sources to cite to prove how fucking crazy they really are.
I refuse to comment on Santorum as I feel that bitch is just plain crazy.
|
I'm just wondering, but WHO is voting for Santorum? What demographic is voting for this num-skull?
|
On March 05 2012 03:34 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 03:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 02:25 liberal wrote:On March 05 2012 02:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:This is the problem with republicans who rag on the "elite" media. You guys don't seem to realize that the current generation of republican politicians say stupid things that warrant such ridicule from the media. Democrats have their share of dumb politicians but the republican party is producing people like bachmann, sarah palin, glenn beck, christine odonnell, etc etc and your surprised that the majority of the media isn't saying nice things about them? Both GOP and democrats are terrible right now, but if you look at it from a relative standpoint, theres so much more impoliteness, vitriol, and hate spewing from the republicans than there are democrats. This is the problem with liberals who justify being assholes with the brilliant argument of "because." You guys don't seem to realize that the current generation of liberals say stupid things that warrant the complaints leveled at you. Conservatives have their fair share of dumb people saying dumb things, but when liberals produce people like Markos Moulitsas, Matt Yglesias, Matt Taibbi, Harry Reid, every other poster at Daily Kos not named Markos Moulitsas, 95% of the writers and commenters at the Huffington Post, etc., you're surprised that you're portrayed as immature assholes? Both conservatives and liberals produce terrible assholes, but if you look at it from a comparative standpoint, there is so much more impoliteness, vitriol, outright lying, and hate spewing from liberals than there is from conservatives. The only difference is that there actually is much, much more impoliteness, vitriol, outright lying, and hate spewing from liberals. The worst you can expect from mainstream conservative publications like the National Review or the Weekly Standard is a squishy kind of disdain, as opposed to the (cheered) regular, sophomoric insults you will find at "respected" liberal publications/shows like the New York Times editorial page, The New York Review of Books, New York Magazine, The New Yorker, Slate.com, Newsweek/Daily Beast (can you imagine National Review leading with a cover story entitled, "Why are critics of Republicans so dumb?" The way Newsbeast did with Andrew Sullivan asking that question about critics of President Obama?), Real Time with Bill Maher, Salon.com, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Young Turks with Cenk Uygur, The Rachel Maddow Show, etc.? You're either a liar or tremendously ignorant if you think that liberals don't engage in more simple name-calling than conservatives in the media outside of daytime talk radio. The only other place conservatives even manage to come close is the internet. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are on Fox News for what, 2 hours a day, compared to the hundred+ daily hours of programming containing liberals calling conservatives racist, misogynist, accusing them of the usually incompatible crimes of stupidity and chicanery, etc., based on lies and the most tendentious of arguments. You can't read, watch, or listen to any liberal outlet without being subjected to a constant barrage of name-calling, strawmen, and general juvenile behavior aimed at conservatives. Just based on reading this thread and others on TL, I have to agree that liberals more often resort to name calling, ad hominem, and straw men. It's really sad to me, and I've been trying to make posts asking people to justify their ideas instead of just calling the other side crazy all the time. It's the IDEAS that matter, not the specific politicians who have endless faults. We should focus on the ideas, not the person, as much as possible. I agree that Rick Santorum is a complete tool and expresses horrible ideas much of the time, but he doesn't represent the entirety of conservative ideology. He simply represents the anti-Romney vote, and the religious fundamentalists. Isn't that completely unfair? I mean this is the Republican Nominations thread. Obviously we're talking about the republicans, so they are going to be the targets. If this was a more balanced thread, like "Obama vs. Romney Thread" or something, then we'd see more attacks on ze liberals. I'm just talking about all the posts that repeat non-arguments like "X is crazy." That seems to be the most common, calling someone "crazy." And I don't care if people think that about one of the Republican nominees, some of their ideas ARE crazy. I just wish people would articulate WHY they think that way instead of relying on lazy attacks like that. I think it's more a numbers thing... There are far more liberals on TL, and so the few conservatives who speak up usually feel the need to explain or justify their reasoning, while the liberals won't catch much slack for just making "lol these people are stupid and crazy" kind of posts. I've criticized those types of mindless posts in the past, and what I get are a bunch of people responding with "but they ARE stupid and crazy." They are missing my point entirely, they need to articulate why they feel that way instead of using it as the premise of their beliefs. I just want this to be a battle of ideas instead of a battle of labels. Personally I think labels are stupid. That might sound funny because my name is liberal, and I guess it is. But people have very different definitions of what a liberal is, especially from one nation to the next. When I say liberal in my posts, I'm referring to what Americans call liberal, although that's not what I consider myself with this name. I think labels like "liberal" are just a too vague, but the labels I really think are bad are the kind of "stupid, crazy" labels I was talking about. I'm already ranting so I might as well continue. The political process that goes on, especially in the US, focuses so much on the individuals and not the philosophies. It's like a popularity contest. They focus on people's sex life and their looks and religion and marriage.... All of that is irrelevant to me. The media tries often to label a certain politician as immoral or hypocritical or whatever, and the whole issue of debating what type of society we would like to live in gets lost. And I hate to see that carry over into forums like this one, where people pick a side, and defend their side at all costs and attack the other side at all costs, and forget the ideas are what need to be questioned and fought. I was agreeing with deepelem that these attacks tend to be more frequent from American "liberals" than from conservatives. It feels like such people are more worried about feeling smarter than other people than actually arguing ideas or trying to win people over to their thinking. I respect conservatives who try to argue a position, even if I think the position is stupid. I don't respect liberals who resort to calling something stupid without articulating why. Otherwise the forum because a pointless circle jerk.
I highlighted the relevant parts and will answer specifically on that statements. That´s how it works, media outlets give to the people what they want. If they want to hear dirty tabloid bullshit stories than so be it. That´s the free market baby - for better or for worse. And from time to time it is the job of the media to call politicians out on their bullshit. And I don´t see the difference between your example and "educated conservatives" calling Obama a Socialist...
|
On March 05 2012 03:59 ranshaked wrote:
I'm just wondering, but WHO is voting for Santorum? What demographic is voting for this num-skull?
Religious fundamentalists are a big part of hist voter base.
I don't have any stats, but from what I can tell that's the way it falls. Probably wrong but meh. His message would strike me as appealing to that group before others.
|
On March 05 2012 03:44 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 03:34 liberal wrote:On March 05 2012 03:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 02:25 liberal wrote:On March 05 2012 02:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:This is the problem with republicans who rag on the "elite" media. You guys don't seem to realize that the current generation of republican politicians say stupid things that warrant such ridicule from the media. Democrats have their share of dumb politicians but the republican party is producing people like bachmann, sarah palin, glenn beck, christine odonnell, etc etc and your surprised that the majority of the media isn't saying nice things about them? Both GOP and democrats are terrible right now, but if you look at it from a relative standpoint, theres so much more impoliteness, vitriol, and hate spewing from the republicans than there are democrats. This is the problem with liberals who justify being assholes with the brilliant argument of "because." You guys don't seem to realize that the current generation of liberals say stupid things that warrant the complaints leveled at you. Conservatives have their fair share of dumb people saying dumb things, but when liberals produce people like Markos Moulitsas, Matt Yglesias, Matt Taibbi, Harry Reid, every other poster at Daily Kos not named Markos Moulitsas, 95% of the writers and commenters at the Huffington Post, etc., you're surprised that you're portrayed as immature assholes? Both conservatives and liberals produce terrible assholes, but if you look at it from a comparative standpoint, there is so much more impoliteness, vitriol, outright lying, and hate spewing from liberals than there is from conservatives. The only difference is that there actually is much, much more impoliteness, vitriol, outright lying, and hate spewing from liberals. The worst you can expect from mainstream conservative publications like the National Review or the Weekly Standard is a squishy kind of disdain, as opposed to the (cheered) regular, sophomoric insults you will find at "respected" liberal publications/shows like the New York Times editorial page, The New York Review of Books, New York Magazine, The New Yorker, Slate.com, Newsweek/Daily Beast (can you imagine National Review leading with a cover story entitled, "Why are critics of Republicans so dumb?" The way Newsbeast did with Andrew Sullivan asking that question about critics of President Obama?), Real Time with Bill Maher, Salon.com, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Young Turks with Cenk Uygur, The Rachel Maddow Show, etc.? You're either a liar or tremendously ignorant if you think that liberals don't engage in more simple name-calling than conservatives in the media outside of daytime talk radio. The only other place conservatives even manage to come close is the internet. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are on Fox News for what, 2 hours a day, compared to the hundred+ daily hours of programming containing liberals calling conservatives racist, misogynist, accusing them of the usually incompatible crimes of stupidity and chicanery, etc., based on lies and the most tendentious of arguments. You can't read, watch, or listen to any liberal outlet without being subjected to a constant barrage of name-calling, strawmen, and general juvenile behavior aimed at conservatives. Just based on reading this thread and others on TL, I have to agree that liberals more often resort to name calling, ad hominem, and straw men. It's really sad to me, and I've been trying to make posts asking people to justify their ideas instead of just calling the other side crazy all the time. It's the IDEAS that matter, not the specific politicians who have endless faults. We should focus on the ideas, not the person, as much as possible. I agree that Rick Santorum is a complete tool and expresses horrible ideas much of the time, but he doesn't represent the entirety of conservative ideology. He simply represents the anti-Romney vote, and the religious fundamentalists. Isn't that completely unfair? I mean this is the Republican Nominations thread. Obviously we're talking about the republicans, so they are going to be the targets. If this was a more balanced thread, like "Obama vs. Romney Thread" or something, then we'd see more attacks on ze liberals. I'm just talking about all the posts that repeat non-arguments like "X is crazy." That seems to be the most common, calling someone "crazy." And I don't care if people think that about one of the Republican nominees, some of their ideas ARE crazy. I just wish people would articulate WHY they think that way instead of relying on lazy attacks like that. I think it's more a numbers thing... There are far more liberals on TL, and so the few conservatives who speak up usually feel the need to explain or justify their reasoning, while the liberals won't catch much slack for just making "lol these people are stupid and crazy" kind of posts. I've criticized those types of mindless posts in the past, and what I get are a bunch of people responding with "but they ARE stupid and crazy." They are missing my point entirely, they need to articulate why they feel that way instead of using it as the premise of their beliefs. I just want this to be a battle of ideas instead of a battle of labels. Personally I think labels are stupid. That might sound funny because my name is liberal, and I guess it is. But people have very different definitions of what a liberal is, especially from one nation to the next. When I say liberal in my posts, I'm referring to what Americans call liberal, because that's become the common meaning here, although that's not what I consider myself with this name. I think labels like "liberal" are just a too vague, but the labels I really think are bad are the kind of "stupid, crazy" labels I was talking about. I'm already ranting so I might as well continue. The political process that goes on, especially in the US, focuses so much on the individuals and not the philosophies. It's like a popularity contest. They focus on people's sex life and their looks and religion and marriage.... All of that is irrelevant to me. The media tries often to label a certain politician as immoral or hypocritical or whatever, and the whole issue of debating what type of society we would like to live in gets lost. And I hate to see that carry over into forums like this one, where people pick a side, and defend their side at all costs and attack the other side at all costs, and forget the ideas are what need to be questioned and fought. I was agreeing with deepelem that these attacks tend to be more frequent from American "liberals" than from conservatives. It feels like such people are more worried about feeling smarter than other people than actually arguing ideas or trying to win people over to their thinking. I respect conservatives who try to argue a position, even if I think the position is stupid. I don't respect liberals who resort to calling something stupid without articulating why. Otherwise the forum because a pointless circle jerk. This post would be valid if the current candidates running for the GOP nomination didn't have so many sources to cite to prove how fucking crazy they really are. I refuse to comment on Santorum as I feel that bitch is just plain crazy.
On March 05 2012 03:59 ranshaked wrote:
I'm just wondering, but WHO is voting for Santorum? What demographic is voting for this num-skull?
lol....
Ok Djzapz.... please come back and tell me that my perception is off here... go ahead. 
|
On March 05 2012 03:59 ranshaked wrote:
I'm just wondering, but WHO is voting for Santorum? What demographic is voting for this num-skull?
I voted for him in the AZ primary b/c I want to see my party burn in flames so it can be rebuilt.
|
On March 05 2012 04:02 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 03:44 stevarius wrote:On March 05 2012 03:34 liberal wrote:On March 05 2012 03:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 02:25 liberal wrote:On March 05 2012 02:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:This is the problem with republicans who rag on the "elite" media. You guys don't seem to realize that the current generation of republican politicians say stupid things that warrant such ridicule from the media. Democrats have their share of dumb politicians but the republican party is producing people like bachmann, sarah palin, glenn beck, christine odonnell, etc etc and your surprised that the majority of the media isn't saying nice things about them? Both GOP and democrats are terrible right now, but if you look at it from a relative standpoint, theres so much more impoliteness, vitriol, and hate spewing from the republicans than there are democrats. This is the problem with liberals who justify being assholes with the brilliant argument of "because." You guys don't seem to realize that the current generation of liberals say stupid things that warrant the complaints leveled at you. Conservatives have their fair share of dumb people saying dumb things, but when liberals produce people like Markos Moulitsas, Matt Yglesias, Matt Taibbi, Harry Reid, every other poster at Daily Kos not named Markos Moulitsas, 95% of the writers and commenters at the Huffington Post, etc., you're surprised that you're portrayed as immature assholes? Both conservatives and liberals produce terrible assholes, but if you look at it from a comparative standpoint, there is so much more impoliteness, vitriol, outright lying, and hate spewing from liberals than there is from conservatives. The only difference is that there actually is much, much more impoliteness, vitriol, outright lying, and hate spewing from liberals. The worst you can expect from mainstream conservative publications like the National Review or the Weekly Standard is a squishy kind of disdain, as opposed to the (cheered) regular, sophomoric insults you will find at "respected" liberal publications/shows like the New York Times editorial page, The New York Review of Books, New York Magazine, The New Yorker, Slate.com, Newsweek/Daily Beast (can you imagine National Review leading with a cover story entitled, "Why are critics of Republicans so dumb?" The way Newsbeast did with Andrew Sullivan asking that question about critics of President Obama?), Real Time with Bill Maher, Salon.com, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Young Turks with Cenk Uygur, The Rachel Maddow Show, etc.? You're either a liar or tremendously ignorant if you think that liberals don't engage in more simple name-calling than conservatives in the media outside of daytime talk radio. The only other place conservatives even manage to come close is the internet. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are on Fox News for what, 2 hours a day, compared to the hundred+ daily hours of programming containing liberals calling conservatives racist, misogynist, accusing them of the usually incompatible crimes of stupidity and chicanery, etc., based on lies and the most tendentious of arguments. You can't read, watch, or listen to any liberal outlet without being subjected to a constant barrage of name-calling, strawmen, and general juvenile behavior aimed at conservatives. Just based on reading this thread and others on TL, I have to agree that liberals more often resort to name calling, ad hominem, and straw men. It's really sad to me, and I've been trying to make posts asking people to justify their ideas instead of just calling the other side crazy all the time. It's the IDEAS that matter, not the specific politicians who have endless faults. We should focus on the ideas, not the person, as much as possible. I agree that Rick Santorum is a complete tool and expresses horrible ideas much of the time, but he doesn't represent the entirety of conservative ideology. He simply represents the anti-Romney vote, and the religious fundamentalists. Isn't that completely unfair? I mean this is the Republican Nominations thread. Obviously we're talking about the republicans, so they are going to be the targets. If this was a more balanced thread, like "Obama vs. Romney Thread" or something, then we'd see more attacks on ze liberals. I'm just talking about all the posts that repeat non-arguments like "X is crazy." That seems to be the most common, calling someone "crazy." And I don't care if people think that about one of the Republican nominees, some of their ideas ARE crazy. I just wish people would articulate WHY they think that way instead of relying on lazy attacks like that. I think it's more a numbers thing... There are far more liberals on TL, and so the few conservatives who speak up usually feel the need to explain or justify their reasoning, while the liberals won't catch much slack for just making "lol these people are stupid and crazy" kind of posts. I've criticized those types of mindless posts in the past, and what I get are a bunch of people responding with "but they ARE stupid and crazy." They are missing my point entirely, they need to articulate why they feel that way instead of using it as the premise of their beliefs. I just want this to be a battle of ideas instead of a battle of labels. Personally I think labels are stupid. That might sound funny because my name is liberal, and I guess it is. But people have very different definitions of what a liberal is, especially from one nation to the next. When I say liberal in my posts, I'm referring to what Americans call liberal, because that's become the common meaning here, although that's not what I consider myself with this name. I think labels like "liberal" are just a too vague, but the labels I really think are bad are the kind of "stupid, crazy" labels I was talking about. I'm already ranting so I might as well continue. The political process that goes on, especially in the US, focuses so much on the individuals and not the philosophies. It's like a popularity contest. They focus on people's sex life and their looks and religion and marriage.... All of that is irrelevant to me. The media tries often to label a certain politician as immoral or hypocritical or whatever, and the whole issue of debating what type of society we would like to live in gets lost. And I hate to see that carry over into forums like this one, where people pick a side, and defend their side at all costs and attack the other side at all costs, and forget the ideas are what need to be questioned and fought. I was agreeing with deepelem that these attacks tend to be more frequent from American "liberals" than from conservatives. It feels like such people are more worried about feeling smarter than other people than actually arguing ideas or trying to win people over to their thinking. I respect conservatives who try to argue a position, even if I think the position is stupid. I don't respect liberals who resort to calling something stupid without articulating why. Otherwise the forum because a pointless circle jerk. This post would be valid if the current candidates running for the GOP nomination didn't have so many sources to cite to prove how fucking crazy they really are. I refuse to comment on Santorum as I feel that bitch is just plain crazy. Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 03:59 ranshaked wrote:
I'm just wondering, but WHO is voting for Santorum? What demographic is voting for this num-skull? lol.... Ok Djzapz.... please come back and tell me that my perception is off here... go ahead.
I am deeply in love with you.
There. Fixed.
|
On March 05 2012 04:02 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 03:44 stevarius wrote:On March 05 2012 03:34 liberal wrote:On March 05 2012 03:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 02:25 liberal wrote:On March 05 2012 02:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:This is the problem with republicans who rag on the "elite" media. You guys don't seem to realize that the current generation of republican politicians say stupid things that warrant such ridicule from the media. Democrats have their share of dumb politicians but the republican party is producing people like bachmann, sarah palin, glenn beck, christine odonnell, etc etc and your surprised that the majority of the media isn't saying nice things about them? Both GOP and democrats are terrible right now, but if you look at it from a relative standpoint, theres so much more impoliteness, vitriol, and hate spewing from the republicans than there are democrats. This is the problem with liberals who justify being assholes with the brilliant argument of "because." You guys don't seem to realize that the current generation of liberals say stupid things that warrant the complaints leveled at you. Conservatives have their fair share of dumb people saying dumb things, but when liberals produce people like Markos Moulitsas, Matt Yglesias, Matt Taibbi, Harry Reid, every other poster at Daily Kos not named Markos Moulitsas, 95% of the writers and commenters at the Huffington Post, etc., you're surprised that you're portrayed as immature assholes? Both conservatives and liberals produce terrible assholes, but if you look at it from a comparative standpoint, there is so much more impoliteness, vitriol, outright lying, and hate spewing from liberals than there is from conservatives. The only difference is that there actually is much, much more impoliteness, vitriol, outright lying, and hate spewing from liberals. The worst you can expect from mainstream conservative publications like the National Review or the Weekly Standard is a squishy kind of disdain, as opposed to the (cheered) regular, sophomoric insults you will find at "respected" liberal publications/shows like the New York Times editorial page, The New York Review of Books, New York Magazine, The New Yorker, Slate.com, Newsweek/Daily Beast (can you imagine National Review leading with a cover story entitled, "Why are critics of Republicans so dumb?" The way Newsbeast did with Andrew Sullivan asking that question about critics of President Obama?), Real Time with Bill Maher, Salon.com, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Young Turks with Cenk Uygur, The Rachel Maddow Show, etc.? You're either a liar or tremendously ignorant if you think that liberals don't engage in more simple name-calling than conservatives in the media outside of daytime talk radio. The only other place conservatives even manage to come close is the internet. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are on Fox News for what, 2 hours a day, compared to the hundred+ daily hours of programming containing liberals calling conservatives racist, misogynist, accusing them of the usually incompatible crimes of stupidity and chicanery, etc., based on lies and the most tendentious of arguments. You can't read, watch, or listen to any liberal outlet without being subjected to a constant barrage of name-calling, strawmen, and general juvenile behavior aimed at conservatives. Just based on reading this thread and others on TL, I have to agree that liberals more often resort to name calling, ad hominem, and straw men. It's really sad to me, and I've been trying to make posts asking people to justify their ideas instead of just calling the other side crazy all the time. It's the IDEAS that matter, not the specific politicians who have endless faults. We should focus on the ideas, not the person, as much as possible. I agree that Rick Santorum is a complete tool and expresses horrible ideas much of the time, but he doesn't represent the entirety of conservative ideology. He simply represents the anti-Romney vote, and the religious fundamentalists. Isn't that completely unfair? I mean this is the Republican Nominations thread. Obviously we're talking about the republicans, so they are going to be the targets. If this was a more balanced thread, like "Obama vs. Romney Thread" or something, then we'd see more attacks on ze liberals. I'm just talking about all the posts that repeat non-arguments like "X is crazy." That seems to be the most common, calling someone "crazy." And I don't care if people think that about one of the Republican nominees, some of their ideas ARE crazy. I just wish people would articulate WHY they think that way instead of relying on lazy attacks like that. I think it's more a numbers thing... There are far more liberals on TL, and so the few conservatives who speak up usually feel the need to explain or justify their reasoning, while the liberals won't catch much slack for just making "lol these people are stupid and crazy" kind of posts. I've criticized those types of mindless posts in the past, and what I get are a bunch of people responding with "but they ARE stupid and crazy." They are missing my point entirely, they need to articulate why they feel that way instead of using it as the premise of their beliefs. I just want this to be a battle of ideas instead of a battle of labels. Personally I think labels are stupid. That might sound funny because my name is liberal, and I guess it is. But people have very different definitions of what a liberal is, especially from one nation to the next. When I say liberal in my posts, I'm referring to what Americans call liberal, because that's become the common meaning here, although that's not what I consider myself with this name. I think labels like "liberal" are just a too vague, but the labels I really think are bad are the kind of "stupid, crazy" labels I was talking about. I'm already ranting so I might as well continue. The political process that goes on, especially in the US, focuses so much on the individuals and not the philosophies. It's like a popularity contest. They focus on people's sex life and their looks and religion and marriage.... All of that is irrelevant to me. The media tries often to label a certain politician as immoral or hypocritical or whatever, and the whole issue of debating what type of society we would like to live in gets lost. And I hate to see that carry over into forums like this one, where people pick a side, and defend their side at all costs and attack the other side at all costs, and forget the ideas are what need to be questioned and fought. I was agreeing with deepelem that these attacks tend to be more frequent from American "liberals" than from conservatives. It feels like such people are more worried about feeling smarter than other people than actually arguing ideas or trying to win people over to their thinking. I respect conservatives who try to argue a position, even if I think the position is stupid. I don't respect liberals who resort to calling something stupid without articulating why. Otherwise the forum because a pointless circle jerk. This post would be valid if the current candidates running for the GOP nomination didn't have so many sources to cite to prove how fucking crazy they really are. I refuse to comment on Santorum as I feel that bitch is just plain crazy. Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 03:59 ranshaked wrote:
I'm just wondering, but WHO is voting for Santorum? What demographic is voting for this num-skull? lol.... Ok Djzapz.... please come back and tell me that my perception is off here... go ahead.
Go to a conservative forum and read what they say about Obama. Perception altered?
|
Was there something wrong with me asking why anyone would vote for santorum?
|
On March 05 2012 04:19 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 04:02 liberal wrote:On March 05 2012 03:44 stevarius wrote:On March 05 2012 03:34 liberal wrote:On March 05 2012 03:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 02:25 liberal wrote:On March 05 2012 02:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:This is the problem with republicans who rag on the "elite" media. You guys don't seem to realize that the current generation of republican politicians say stupid things that warrant such ridicule from the media. Democrats have their share of dumb politicians but the republican party is producing people like bachmann, sarah palin, glenn beck, christine odonnell, etc etc and your surprised that the majority of the media isn't saying nice things about them? Both GOP and democrats are terrible right now, but if you look at it from a relative standpoint, theres so much more impoliteness, vitriol, and hate spewing from the republicans than there are democrats. This is the problem with liberals who justify being assholes with the brilliant argument of "because." You guys don't seem to realize that the current generation of liberals say stupid things that warrant the complaints leveled at you. Conservatives have their fair share of dumb people saying dumb things, but when liberals produce people like Markos Moulitsas, Matt Yglesias, Matt Taibbi, Harry Reid, every other poster at Daily Kos not named Markos Moulitsas, 95% of the writers and commenters at the Huffington Post, etc., you're surprised that you're portrayed as immature assholes? Both conservatives and liberals produce terrible assholes, but if you look at it from a comparative standpoint, there is so much more impoliteness, vitriol, outright lying, and hate spewing from liberals than there is from conservatives. The only difference is that there actually is much, much more impoliteness, vitriol, outright lying, and hate spewing from liberals. The worst you can expect from mainstream conservative publications like the National Review or the Weekly Standard is a squishy kind of disdain, as opposed to the (cheered) regular, sophomoric insults you will find at "respected" liberal publications/shows like the New York Times editorial page, The New York Review of Books, New York Magazine, The New Yorker, Slate.com, Newsweek/Daily Beast (can you imagine National Review leading with a cover story entitled, "Why are critics of Republicans so dumb?" The way Newsbeast did with Andrew Sullivan asking that question about critics of President Obama?), Real Time with Bill Maher, Salon.com, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Young Turks with Cenk Uygur, The Rachel Maddow Show, etc.? You're either a liar or tremendously ignorant if you think that liberals don't engage in more simple name-calling than conservatives in the media outside of daytime talk radio. The only other place conservatives even manage to come close is the internet. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are on Fox News for what, 2 hours a day, compared to the hundred+ daily hours of programming containing liberals calling conservatives racist, misogynist, accusing them of the usually incompatible crimes of stupidity and chicanery, etc., based on lies and the most tendentious of arguments. You can't read, watch, or listen to any liberal outlet without being subjected to a constant barrage of name-calling, strawmen, and general juvenile behavior aimed at conservatives. Just based on reading this thread and others on TL, I have to agree that liberals more often resort to name calling, ad hominem, and straw men. It's really sad to me, and I've been trying to make posts asking people to justify their ideas instead of just calling the other side crazy all the time. It's the IDEAS that matter, not the specific politicians who have endless faults. We should focus on the ideas, not the person, as much as possible. I agree that Rick Santorum is a complete tool and expresses horrible ideas much of the time, but he doesn't represent the entirety of conservative ideology. He simply represents the anti-Romney vote, and the religious fundamentalists. Isn't that completely unfair? I mean this is the Republican Nominations thread. Obviously we're talking about the republicans, so they are going to be the targets. If this was a more balanced thread, like "Obama vs. Romney Thread" or something, then we'd see more attacks on ze liberals. I'm just talking about all the posts that repeat non-arguments like "X is crazy." That seems to be the most common, calling someone "crazy." And I don't care if people think that about one of the Republican nominees, some of their ideas ARE crazy. I just wish people would articulate WHY they think that way instead of relying on lazy attacks like that. I think it's more a numbers thing... There are far more liberals on TL, and so the few conservatives who speak up usually feel the need to explain or justify their reasoning, while the liberals won't catch much slack for just making "lol these people are stupid and crazy" kind of posts. I've criticized those types of mindless posts in the past, and what I get are a bunch of people responding with "but they ARE stupid and crazy." They are missing my point entirely, they need to articulate why they feel that way instead of using it as the premise of their beliefs. I just want this to be a battle of ideas instead of a battle of labels. Personally I think labels are stupid. That might sound funny because my name is liberal, and I guess it is. But people have very different definitions of what a liberal is, especially from one nation to the next. When I say liberal in my posts, I'm referring to what Americans call liberal, because that's become the common meaning here, although that's not what I consider myself with this name. I think labels like "liberal" are just a too vague, but the labels I really think are bad are the kind of "stupid, crazy" labels I was talking about. I'm already ranting so I might as well continue. The political process that goes on, especially in the US, focuses so much on the individuals and not the philosophies. It's like a popularity contest. They focus on people's sex life and their looks and religion and marriage.... All of that is irrelevant to me. The media tries often to label a certain politician as immoral or hypocritical or whatever, and the whole issue of debating what type of society we would like to live in gets lost. And I hate to see that carry over into forums like this one, where people pick a side, and defend their side at all costs and attack the other side at all costs, and forget the ideas are what need to be questioned and fought. I was agreeing with deepelem that these attacks tend to be more frequent from American "liberals" than from conservatives. It feels like such people are more worried about feeling smarter than other people than actually arguing ideas or trying to win people over to their thinking. I respect conservatives who try to argue a position, even if I think the position is stupid. I don't respect liberals who resort to calling something stupid without articulating why. Otherwise the forum because a pointless circle jerk. This post would be valid if the current candidates running for the GOP nomination didn't have so many sources to cite to prove how fucking crazy they really are. I refuse to comment on Santorum as I feel that bitch is just plain crazy. On March 05 2012 03:59 ranshaked wrote:
I'm just wondering, but WHO is voting for Santorum? What demographic is voting for this num-skull? lol.... Ok Djzapz.... please come back and tell me that my perception is off here... go ahead. Go to a conservative forum and read what they say about Obama. Perception altered?
No, my perception of this forum isn't changed one bit by reading other forums.
I was just hoping TL could try to stay above the mindless partisan vitriol, that's all. I find it very boring to read.
On March 05 2012 04:29 ranshaked wrote:
Was there something wrong with me asking why anyone would vote for santorum?
No, I was just using your use of "num-skull" to try and make a point. Oh, and also, sometimes people in the world will have opinions different than yours, which is why people vote differently than you do.
|
On March 05 2012 03:59 ranshaked wrote:
I'm just wondering, but WHO is voting for Santorum? What demographic is voting for this num-skull?
Devout Christians, perhaps even moderate ones that are anti-abortion, xenophobic or homophobic, and old men that which America was like the bad good-old days -- let's say the 1940's or 50's, when women stayed at home and black people 'knew their place'.
So more people than you'd think.
|
There are 18,000 married gay and lesbian couples in California and at least 131,000 nationwide according to the 2010 census, conducted before New York state legalized same-sex marriage in July.
Rick Santorum says he'll try to unmarry all of them if he's elected president.
Once the U.S. Constitution is amended to prohibit same-gender marriages, "their marriage would be invalid," the former Pennsylvania senator said Dec. 30 in an NBC News interview.
"We can't have 50 different marriage laws in this country," he said. "You have to have one marriage law."
The comments didn't attract nearly as much attention as Santorum's recent invocation of his Catholic faith to denounce government support for birth control, prenatal testing and resource conservation - which, in the last case, he attributed to President Obama's "phony theology."
But his declared intention to nullify past as well as future same-sex marriages has reinforced his position to the right of the other Republican contenders, even though each of them has also voiced fervent support for traditional unions.
Source
|
@Stealthblue, someone already has that one posted on page 513.
'Tis hilarious though.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 05 2012 04:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +There are 18,000 married gay and lesbian couples in California and at least 131,000 nationwide according to the 2010 census, conducted before New York state legalized same-sex marriage in July.
Rick Santorum says he'll try to unmarry all of them if he's elected president.
Once the U.S. Constitution is amended to prohibit same-gender marriages, "their marriage would be invalid," the former Pennsylvania senator said Dec. 30 in an NBC News interview.
"We can't have 50 different marriage laws in this country," he said. "You have to have one marriage law."
The comments didn't attract nearly as much attention as Santorum's recent invocation of his Catholic faith to denounce government support for birth control, prenatal testing and resource conservation - which, in the last case, he attributed to President Obama's "phony theology."
But his declared intention to nullify past as well as future same-sex marriages has reinforced his position to the right of the other Republican contenders, even though each of them has also voiced fervent support for traditional unions. Source
Santorum is a sub-human piece of shit.
|
Yeah I was just posting again as someone pointed out a couple pages ago that the only Republican that has yet to support the increase of Government is Ron Paul. Romney was the last when he suggested National I.D. Cards to deter illegal immigration.
|
On March 05 2012 04:39 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 04:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:There are 18,000 married gay and lesbian couples in California and at least 131,000 nationwide according to the 2010 census, conducted before New York state legalized same-sex marriage in July.
Rick Santorum says he'll try to unmarry all of them if he's elected president.
Once the U.S. Constitution is amended to prohibit same-gender marriages, "their marriage would be invalid," the former Pennsylvania senator said Dec. 30 in an NBC News interview.
"We can't have 50 different marriage laws in this country," he said. "You have to have one marriage law."
The comments didn't attract nearly as much attention as Santorum's recent invocation of his Catholic faith to denounce government support for birth control, prenatal testing and resource conservation - which, in the last case, he attributed to President Obama's "phony theology."
But his declared intention to nullify past as well as future same-sex marriages has reinforced his position to the right of the other Republican contenders, even though each of them has also voiced fervent support for traditional unions. Source Santorum is a sub-human piece of shit.
Some people could call that an "ad hominem", but you don't get to "unmarry" 131,000 gay couples without being worthy of major disrespect from actual humans.
|
On March 05 2012 04:30 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 04:19 nam nam wrote:On March 05 2012 04:02 liberal wrote:On March 05 2012 03:44 stevarius wrote:On March 05 2012 03:34 liberal wrote:On March 05 2012 03:07 DoubleReed wrote:On March 05 2012 02:25 liberal wrote:On March 05 2012 02:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:This is the problem with republicans who rag on the "elite" media. You guys don't seem to realize that the current generation of republican politicians say stupid things that warrant such ridicule from the media. Democrats have their share of dumb politicians but the republican party is producing people like bachmann, sarah palin, glenn beck, christine odonnell, etc etc and your surprised that the majority of the media isn't saying nice things about them? Both GOP and democrats are terrible right now, but if you look at it from a relative standpoint, theres so much more impoliteness, vitriol, and hate spewing from the republicans than there are democrats. This is the problem with liberals who justify being assholes with the brilliant argument of "because." You guys don't seem to realize that the current generation of liberals say stupid things that warrant the complaints leveled at you. Conservatives have their fair share of dumb people saying dumb things, but when liberals produce people like Markos Moulitsas, Matt Yglesias, Matt Taibbi, Harry Reid, every other poster at Daily Kos not named Markos Moulitsas, 95% of the writers and commenters at the Huffington Post, etc., you're surprised that you're portrayed as immature assholes? Both conservatives and liberals produce terrible assholes, but if you look at it from a comparative standpoint, there is so much more impoliteness, vitriol, outright lying, and hate spewing from liberals than there is from conservatives. The only difference is that there actually is much, much more impoliteness, vitriol, outright lying, and hate spewing from liberals. The worst you can expect from mainstream conservative publications like the National Review or the Weekly Standard is a squishy kind of disdain, as opposed to the (cheered) regular, sophomoric insults you will find at "respected" liberal publications/shows like the New York Times editorial page, The New York Review of Books, New York Magazine, The New Yorker, Slate.com, Newsweek/Daily Beast (can you imagine National Review leading with a cover story entitled, "Why are critics of Republicans so dumb?" The way Newsbeast did with Andrew Sullivan asking that question about critics of President Obama?), Real Time with Bill Maher, Salon.com, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Young Turks with Cenk Uygur, The Rachel Maddow Show, etc.? You're either a liar or tremendously ignorant if you think that liberals don't engage in more simple name-calling than conservatives in the media outside of daytime talk radio. The only other place conservatives even manage to come close is the internet. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are on Fox News for what, 2 hours a day, compared to the hundred+ daily hours of programming containing liberals calling conservatives racist, misogynist, accusing them of the usually incompatible crimes of stupidity and chicanery, etc., based on lies and the most tendentious of arguments. You can't read, watch, or listen to any liberal outlet without being subjected to a constant barrage of name-calling, strawmen, and general juvenile behavior aimed at conservatives. Just based on reading this thread and others on TL, I have to agree that liberals more often resort to name calling, ad hominem, and straw men. It's really sad to me, and I've been trying to make posts asking people to justify their ideas instead of just calling the other side crazy all the time. It's the IDEAS that matter, not the specific politicians who have endless faults. We should focus on the ideas, not the person, as much as possible. I agree that Rick Santorum is a complete tool and expresses horrible ideas much of the time, but he doesn't represent the entirety of conservative ideology. He simply represents the anti-Romney vote, and the religious fundamentalists. Isn't that completely unfair? I mean this is the Republican Nominations thread. Obviously we're talking about the republicans, so they are going to be the targets. If this was a more balanced thread, like "Obama vs. Romney Thread" or something, then we'd see more attacks on ze liberals. I'm just talking about all the posts that repeat non-arguments like "X is crazy." That seems to be the most common, calling someone "crazy." And I don't care if people think that about one of the Republican nominees, some of their ideas ARE crazy. I just wish people would articulate WHY they think that way instead of relying on lazy attacks like that. I think it's more a numbers thing... There are far more liberals on TL, and so the few conservatives who speak up usually feel the need to explain or justify their reasoning, while the liberals won't catch much slack for just making "lol these people are stupid and crazy" kind of posts. I've criticized those types of mindless posts in the past, and what I get are a bunch of people responding with "but they ARE stupid and crazy." They are missing my point entirely, they need to articulate why they feel that way instead of using it as the premise of their beliefs. I just want this to be a battle of ideas instead of a battle of labels. Personally I think labels are stupid. That might sound funny because my name is liberal, and I guess it is. But people have very different definitions of what a liberal is, especially from one nation to the next. When I say liberal in my posts, I'm referring to what Americans call liberal, because that's become the common meaning here, although that's not what I consider myself with this name. I think labels like "liberal" are just a too vague, but the labels I really think are bad are the kind of "stupid, crazy" labels I was talking about. I'm already ranting so I might as well continue. The political process that goes on, especially in the US, focuses so much on the individuals and not the philosophies. It's like a popularity contest. They focus on people's sex life and their looks and religion and marriage.... All of that is irrelevant to me. The media tries often to label a certain politician as immoral or hypocritical or whatever, and the whole issue of debating what type of society we would like to live in gets lost. And I hate to see that carry over into forums like this one, where people pick a side, and defend their side at all costs and attack the other side at all costs, and forget the ideas are what need to be questioned and fought. I was agreeing with deepelem that these attacks tend to be more frequent from American "liberals" than from conservatives. It feels like such people are more worried about feeling smarter than other people than actually arguing ideas or trying to win people over to their thinking. I respect conservatives who try to argue a position, even if I think the position is stupid. I don't respect liberals who resort to calling something stupid without articulating why. Otherwise the forum because a pointless circle jerk. This post would be valid if the current candidates running for the GOP nomination didn't have so many sources to cite to prove how fucking crazy they really are. I refuse to comment on Santorum as I feel that bitch is just plain crazy. On March 05 2012 03:59 ranshaked wrote:
I'm just wondering, but WHO is voting for Santorum? What demographic is voting for this num-skull? lol.... Ok Djzapz.... please come back and tell me that my perception is off here... go ahead. Go to a conservative forum and read what they say about Obama. Perception altered? No, my perception of this forum isn't changed one bit by reading other forums. I was just hoping TL could try to stay above the mindless partisan vitriol, that's all. I find it very boring to read. Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 04:29 ranshaked wrote:
Was there something wrong with me asking why anyone would vote for santorum? No, I was just using your use of "num-skull" to try and make a point. Oh, and also, sometimes people in the world will have opinions different than yours, which is why people vote differently than you do.
I use num-skull to describe ignorance. For someone to say the things that santorum has said shows ignorance.
|
On March 05 2012 04:40 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 04:39 Whitewing wrote:On March 05 2012 04:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:There are 18,000 married gay and lesbian couples in California and at least 131,000 nationwide according to the 2010 census, conducted before New York state legalized same-sex marriage in July.
Rick Santorum says he'll try to unmarry all of them if he's elected president.
Once the U.S. Constitution is amended to prohibit same-gender marriages, "their marriage would be invalid," the former Pennsylvania senator said Dec. 30 in an NBC News interview.
"We can't have 50 different marriage laws in this country," he said. "You have to have one marriage law."
The comments didn't attract nearly as much attention as Santorum's recent invocation of his Catholic faith to denounce government support for birth control, prenatal testing and resource conservation - which, in the last case, he attributed to President Obama's "phony theology."
But his declared intention to nullify past as well as future same-sex marriages has reinforced his position to the right of the other Republican contenders, even though each of them has also voiced fervent support for traditional unions. Source Santorum is a sub-human piece of shit. Some people could call that an "ad hominem", but you don't get to "unmarry" 131,000 gay couples without being worthy of major disrespect from actual humans.
People who oppose gay marriage aren't inhuman. They've simply been conditioned by their environment to feel a certain way, and they are expressing those feelings. You've experienced a different environment and so experience different emotions based on different values.
It all sounds like distinctively human behavior to me.
^ See that's an example of an idea or an argument. It isn't me calling you stupid, or crazy, or ignorant, or subhuman. Get it?
|
On March 05 2012 04:45 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 04:40 Djzapz wrote:On March 05 2012 04:39 Whitewing wrote:On March 05 2012 04:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:There are 18,000 married gay and lesbian couples in California and at least 131,000 nationwide according to the 2010 census, conducted before New York state legalized same-sex marriage in July.
Rick Santorum says he'll try to unmarry all of them if he's elected president.
Once the U.S. Constitution is amended to prohibit same-gender marriages, "their marriage would be invalid," the former Pennsylvania senator said Dec. 30 in an NBC News interview.
"We can't have 50 different marriage laws in this country," he said. "You have to have one marriage law."
The comments didn't attract nearly as much attention as Santorum's recent invocation of his Catholic faith to denounce government support for birth control, prenatal testing and resource conservation - which, in the last case, he attributed to President Obama's "phony theology."
But his declared intention to nullify past as well as future same-sex marriages has reinforced his position to the right of the other Republican contenders, even though each of them has also voiced fervent support for traditional unions. Source Santorum is a sub-human piece of shit. Some people could call that an "ad hominem", but you don't get to "unmarry" 131,000 gay couples without being worthy of major disrespect from actual humans. People who oppose gay marriage aren't inhuman. They've simply been conditioned by their environment to feel a certain way, and they are expressing those feelings. You've experienced a different environment and so experience different emotions based on different values. It all sounds like distinctively human behavior to me.
There is a difference between opposing gay marriage and seeking to undo marriages all over the country that were already lawfully obtained. It's spiteful, vindictive, and clearly only aimed at appeasing the fundamentalist minority.
|
looking forward to super Tuesday these are my predictions:
Ron Paul will go on as he goes, stays in the race for a bit longer. (on a side note, whichever candidate wins has got to offer Ron Paul a high-power position unless they enjoy immolating themselves in front of the nation)
Gingrich will show some strength, but not enough to stay in the race. i think he will drop out and probably endorse Santorum.
Santorum will win some, lose some, but get enough to keep a bit of momentum and the endorsement from Gingrich will give him a slight bump. it will be too little too late though, and he will slowly suffocate out.
Romney will have another mediocre showing that is just enough for him to win. his funding and the fact that he has been running for 4 years already is too much for the other candidates to topple, especially since Gingrich has refused to get out of the race until it's too late to make a difference. this could be a really good thing as it seems like Romney and Paul have some sort of agreement, and i think Paul is smart enough for it not to be VP. (announcing that Paul will be your Treasury Sec. or chairmen of the Fed or something would be amazing.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
