Analysis of Romney's defeat

[hobbsyoyo]

I surrendered to Ron Quaeda a few days ago.

 

[Arwon]

I tried that, I really did. I wasn't even trying to actually put a dent in his conservatism/libertarianism. I just wanted to show him that some of the things he posts are insane and frankly troll bait and he drags conversation down.

But I found he'd rather repeat everything he heard on Fox News/AM Talk Radio/random Ron Paul websites than actually think about what he's read or heard before he repeats it.

Don't worry. He will grow up. Remember how cocksure teenagers are.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Don't worry. He will grow up. Remember how cocksure teenagers are.

Maybe. He hasn't reached the age yet when I abandoned my conservativism. But then I wasn't nearly as in-touch with political currents and ideas as he seems to be, I just knew what my parents and other adults, and the media they let me watch had told me was right, so I had no ideology to more firmly entrench myself with "correctness" and shut everything out.

 

[GhostWriter16]

@GhostWriter16: If the Constitution were self-explanatory I don't think the founding fathers would have had so many arguments over whether things like national banks were constitutional. Believe it or not, there are people who see things differently from the way you see them. There is never unanimous agreement among people over what a piece of text means, whether that text comes from a constitution, a holy book or a work of fiction because words are not defined with the necessary amount of precision.

Fair point. I, of course, think Hamilton was reading into it on purpose (The reality is he WANTED a bank and had to justify it constitutionally) but that's neither here nor there.

There's no real legitimate debate on what the 2nd amendment means though.

Ghostwriter, choose a holy text: US Constitution or the Bible.

The Bible is Holy. The Constitution is the American system of governance.

Well, to be fair, even Israel doesn't have to deal with as much incoming as we do.

I chuckled.

 

[Harv]

Don't worry. He will grow up. Remember how cocksure teenagers are.

This makes me think of a saying: If you are not a "liberal" by the time you are twenty years of age, then you do not have a heart. If you are still a "liberal" by the time you are thirty, then you do not have a brain. [And of course, if you are over 30, are a liberal, and have a brain, then you know exactly what this saying means and will keep that information to yourself.]

Apparently the saying predates this saying: 40 is the new 30.

By this logic, I would suspect that most of the posters here are between 20 and 40, probably between 20 and 30. Dommy, of course, is under 20.

Are there any people here?

 

[JollyRoger]

There's no real legitimate debate on what the 2nd amendment means though.

Then why do you insist on getting it wrong?

 

[ace99]

Someone should tell all the legal scholars that they're wasting their time!

 

[GhostWriter16]

They are

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

If you are not a "liberal" by the time you are twenty years of age, then you do not have a heart. If you are still a "liberal" by the time you are thirty, then you do not have a brain.

When I look at the intellectual bankruptcy of the political right, I really wonder where phrases like this come from.

The "great" universities of the political right worship the farcical teachings of Ayn Rand or deny science in favor of Biblical teachings. The intellectual capacity of the right has been dedicated to "stopping Obama at all costs" for the past 4 years as the top political priority. Their idea of a budget doesn't even include things like specific numbers. Their idea of a balanced budget is taking a huge deficit and piling tax cuts on top of it. Their idea of justice is forcing an underaged rape victim to bear her father's seed, even if it kills her.

If you are still conservative after the past 12 years, you do not have a brain.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I chuckled.

That's because however annoying you can be you're also a good sport. Which annoys me even more.

 

[kochman]

Maybe. He hasn't reached the age yet when I abandoned my conservativism. But then I wasn't nearly as in-touch with political currents and ideas as he seems to be, I just knew what my parents and other adults, and the media they let me watch had told me was right, so I had no ideology to more firmly entrench myself with "correctness" and shut everything out.

And from there you went to that awesome, moderate and proven successful ideology... Communism.
Sweet!

 

[Ajidica]

And from there you went to that awesome, moderate and proven successful ideology... Communism.
Sweet!

So you are angry he adopted an ideology that preaches the universal brotherhood and equality of man?

 

[kochman]

So you are angry he adopted an ideology that preaches the universal brotherhood and equality of man?

Angry? Not at all. Why do you so often try to pigeon hole people when you debate with them?

Astounded that while dismissing one ideology for being ridiculous, he went a way more ridiculous one in that it's a pipe dream that has a zero percent chance of coming to reality (I'm talking about the delightful "true communism" that somehow people who are otherwise intelligent seem to think will take root in humans).

It's like saying... man, I hate when people smack other people... so I just hit them with a closed fist.

 

[Ajidica]

Angry? Not at all. Why do you so often try to pigeon hole people when you debate with them?

Forgive me, but an inquiry is not an assertion. I did not say you were angry. If I had, then I would have been pigeonholing you. I was simply inquiring into your emotional state to better understand you.

 

[kochman]

Forgive me, but an inquiry is not an assertion. I did not say you were angry. If I had, then I would have been pigeonholing you. I was simply inquiring into your emotional state to better understand you.

Ok, it came across as a loaded question over the internets...

 

[Arakhor]

This makes me think of a saying: If you are not a "liberal" by the time you are twenty years of age, then you do not have a heart. If you are still a "liberal" by the time you are thirty, then you do not have a brain. [And of course, if you are over 30, are a liberal, and have a brain, then you know exactly what this saying means and will keep that information to yourself.]

Personally, I'm a fan of Galileo's comment: I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.

(For the record, I passed 30 a few years ago.)

 

[Harv]

If you are still conservative after the past 12 years, you do not have a brain.

So where were you when Ronald Reagan became President?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

So where were you when Ronald Reagan became President?

Literally in two places at once.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Literally in two places at once.

So you are of the opinion that a sperm and an egg are people?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

So you are of the opinion that a sperm and an egg are people?

It's the logical conclusion to the movement to ban abortion and post-coital contraception, considering it can take up to 72 hours for fertilization to take place after sex. Making the pill illegal only makes sense if you think sperm and egg are people. Which is really [expletive] stupid and I can't believe this country nearly elected people who are for such laws. Then again, we also have a country full of people who pay money for horoscopes, think fortune cookies are Chinese, routinely elect politicians who think the Bible is a scientific textbook, and think the Flintstones was a historical documentary, so what can I really expect.