The Seriously? Theatre of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts V

[Flake]

HC because I like it bareback

What's wrong with that?

That attitude has killed far too many in the gay community.

No, that attitude did not kill people. The fact that the gay community was driven underground contributed to the perfect storm that killed so many people.

Well, yeah, obviously the historical stigmatization of the gay community hasn't helped either. But I don't think that risky behaviors like unprotected sex or smoking should be tolerated either. It's especially galling to hear such attitudes coming from a member of a community which has been so disproportionately harmed.

I mean, if they're both consenting what's the problem? It's not like he has AIDS and wouldn't mention it because he likes it raw.

Actually that does happen.

I'm aware. of that. I'm not sure how it applies to Del Tachi.

Ah, I see.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Reagan of course

This, although Bush gets far less credit than he deserves.

I agree, Bush deserves far more credit for destroying the economy and the Middle East than he actually gets. It's easier to blame the black guy.

Anyway, I don't see why anyone of any ideological persuasion would vote for Dubya.

No; he gets far less credit for protecting our country during the war on terror.  Clinton and Congressional Republicans were the ones who destroyed the economy by repealing Glass-Steagall.

[IceSpear]

Guilt by association sucks. It's also very selective.  Knowing the spineless nature of Republicans,Scalise will get the Lott treatment.

Meanwhile, Democrats will schedule speeches at La Raza, kiss Sharpton's ring, and elect Presidents who attended Jeremiah Wright's church -- without media attention.

[Cranberry]

I guess that fits in here? Especially that first sentence...

The Pro-Life position is a very libertarian thing. How can you say denying abortion is an anti-libertarian belief? Life is the greatest right we all have and the taking of the life of the "most innocent" among us is a great injustice. Theocratic revanchist I am not. The non-aggression axiom most definitely applies.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I guess that fits in here? Especially that first sentence...

The Pro-Life position is a very libertarian thing. How can you say denying abortion is an anti-libertarian belief? Life is the greatest right we all have and the taking of the life of the "most innocent" among us is a great injustice. Theocratic revanchist I am not. The non-aggression axiom most definitely applies.

While you may think it wrong to believe that life begins at conception, for those who hold that belief, libertarianism would logically lead to being against abortion at any stage of development.  While I don't have that particular belief, I don't think it is absurd, so I can't see where that post belongs here.

[Cranberry]

I guess that fits in here? Especially that first sentence...

The Pro-Life position is a very libertarian thing. How can you say denying abortion is an anti-libertarian belief? Life is the greatest right we all have and the taking of the life of the "most innocent" among us is a great injustice. Theocratic revanchist I am not. The non-aggression axiom most definitely applies.

While you may think it wrong to believe that life begins at conception, for those who hold that belief, libertarianism would logically lead to being against abortion at any stage of development.  While I don't have that particular belief, I don't think it is absurd, so I can't see where that post belongs here.

Still, it is widely known that pro-life positions are not particularly what one would consider as "libertarian", rather have libertarians been associated with the complete opposite of pro-life positions. 
As such, yes, I find it absurd that one would make that claim.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I guess that fits in here? Especially that first sentence...

The Pro-Life position is a very libertarian thing. How can you say denying abortion is an anti-libertarian belief? Life is the greatest right we all have and the taking of the life of the "most innocent" among us is a great injustice. Theocratic revanchist I am not. The non-aggression axiom most definitely applies.

While you may think it wrong to believe that life begins at conception, for those who hold that belief, libertarianism would logically lead to being against abortion at any stage of development.  While I don't have that particular belief, I don't think it is absurd, so I can't see where that post belongs here.

Still, it is widely known that pro-life positions are not particularly what one would consider as "libertarian", rather have libertarians been associated with the complete opposite of pro-life positions. 
As such, yes, I find it absurd that one would make that claim.

Almost anything can be framed in a freedom/anti-freedom light depending on the angle.  I'm sure a pro-life libertarian would say "how dare the government step in and let a fetus's parents deny it life and liberty!"

[free my dawg]

Reagan of course

This, although Bush gets far less credit than he deserves.

I agree, Bush deserves far more credit for destroying the economy and the Middle East than he actually gets. It's easier to blame the black guy.

Anyway, I don't see why anyone of any ideological persuasion would vote for Dubya.

No; he gets far less credit for protecting our country during the war on terror.  Clinton and Congressional Republicans were the ones who destroyed the economy by repealing Glass-Steagall.

The last part of this is not absurd. It's the truth.

[memphis]

I'd rather turn out like Camden than Jacksonville.

[IceSpear]

Eh, still far less corrupt than Hillary Clinton.

[Miles]

Krazen's posts are just so insightful and germane!

He should have drowned a woman at Chappaquiddick.

[Paul Kemp]

Krazen's posts are just so insightful and germane!

He should have drowned a woman at Chappaquiddick.

It's almost as if you seek out his posts...

[Miles]

Krazen's posts are just so insightful and germane!

He should have drowned a woman at Chappaquiddick.

It's almost as if you seek out his posts...

Er, that thread has had a lot of updates over the past day or two. Forgive me for noticing that he had one of the latest posts

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Given that in context he clearly means 'can' in the sense of 'should':

Congress can draw its own districts.

[Keystone Phil]

Krazen's posts are just so insightful and germane!

He should have drowned a woman at Chappaquiddick.

It's almost as if you seek out his posts...

My jokes aside, I really like Miles but yes, he's clearly obsessed with krazen.

[memphis]

Referring to the Dixiecrats

The people who ruled the South were economic progressives

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

They were Calvinistic just like the Puritans.  The only difference between the two, religions, which they believed in salvation and strictly going by the bible, not by the minister, is that the Quakers didn't see the inequal treatment of Blacks or Indians as being a way of life.  People like Abe Lincoln

On the other hand Puritans like George Washington blended in with the culture and believed in inequalithy of the races and believed strongly in slavery.

Both sects fled Europe on account of Church of England.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

They were Calvinistic just like the Puritans.  The only difference between the two, religions, which they believed in salvation and strictly going by the bible, not by the minister, is that the Quakers didn't see the inequal treatment of Blacks or Indians as being a way of life.  People like Abe Lincoln

On the other hand Puritans like George Washington blended in with the culture and believed in inequalithy of the races and believed strongly in slavery.

Both sects fled Europe on account of Church of England.

Wow.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That's quite the impressive post. Basically every single sentence is wrong (well perhaps not the last one but even that's an extreme oversimplification.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The only reason this doesn't give NewYorkExpress' Louisiana runoff prediction a challenge for "dumbest electoral prediction of 2014" is that it's about a purely hypothetical election:

He'd do worse than Astorino did.

He'd do better actually. Pataki had three term experience and was known to be more liberal on social issues than the national GOP.  Even in 2006 he said that he would consider the state government recongize gay marriage performed in Massachusetts.  And was known to be closer to the democrats on abortion way back in 1994.

gay marriage even in 2006 was not as accepted until the last half decade.


But given the demographics in New York that has made the state more loopsided in favor of the democrats he'd have to pray that he'd get close.  

Its likely that Cuomo compared to this year would go left just like Quinn did against rauner, and Hawkins drops out just like the greens in illinois did to help quinn.

Then edge out a narrow victory. but Pataki probably gets 70-85% support in Upstate, wins the suburbs by 55-70%. But still lose because of NYC.

[Flake]

This might sound crazy, but LeBron James just turned 30 this year... any chance we Democrats could talk him into retiring and running against Portman. Would he (LeBron) even be electable statewide?

[Lambsbread]

This might sound crazy, but LeBron James just turned 30 this year... any chance we Democrats could talk him into retiring and running against Portman. Would he (LeBron) even be electable statewide?

Jesus Christ.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This might sound crazy, but LeBron James just turned 30 this year... any chance we Democrats could talk him into retiring and running against Portman. Would he (LeBron) even be electable statewide?

Jesus Christ.

Seeing how the OH Dems performed in 2014, I wouldn't be surprised if they did nominate such a candidate....

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd really like to hear Cory explain why expanding air bombing into Cambodia and Laos over the objections of Congress without informing Congress was necessary to win the Cold War.

The bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trial was needed to interdict enemy supplies flowing from the North. Cambodia and Laos were "neutral" in name only. As for Congress, they often times lack the vision or understanding of these issues to be informed of everything. They would just make political hay out of it.

Or the subsequent support of the Khmer Rouge regime because it was pro-Beijing and not pro-Moscow.

The more we can do to turn China and the Soviets against each other, the better. Have them duke it out and use them as wedges against each other. This strategy worked quite well, actually.

It can't be because of a vested need to fight Communism in SE Asia because Kissinger also oversaw peace with Hanoi and the withdrawal from Vietnam.

The goal was not regime change in the North.

Oh, perhaps Cory's referring to the coup and murder of the president of Chile that Kissinger supported. That essential Cold War victory.

I never said I support literally everything they did. But from a raw geo-political perspective, yes the installment of a pro-American dictator and in Chile was a win.

You objections seem to be based more on moral grounds then actual policy failures.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

At the risk of sounding like some sort of moderate hero version of Snowstalker, Cory is right that most of what Kissinger did was more or less successful in advancing American geopolitical goals during the Cold War, but that very fact should incline us to become a bit more critical or at least skeptical of American geopolitical goals during the Cold War.