Florida Lawmaker Warns Common Core Will Turn Children 'Homosexual'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent… I’m not joking.”
–Joe Biden, in a private remark to an Indian-American man caught on C-SPAN, June, 2006

“If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there’s still a 30% chance we’re going to get it wrong.”
–Joe Biden, speaking to members of the House Democratic caucus who were gathered in Williamsburg, Va., for their annual retreat, Feb. 6, 2009

Both parties say dumb shit…[/quote]

I wonder what Bush knew and when he knew about pilots are going to fly airplanes into targets in the US
[/quote]

Oh dear. We’re suffering from delusions aren’t we? When were you diagnosed with the schizophrenia?
[/quote]

No , I am just saying you could beat any situation to death
[/quote]

Okay. I thought you were suggesting that Bush had prior knowledge of 911.
[/quote]

he did

42
43

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Quit being immature. You posted a bunch of incidences of lunatics, not politicians doing and saying stupid/dangerous shit, and one incidence of that Franken asshole talking about rape when he wasn’t a politician.
So yeah, you’ll have to do better. Suck it up.
[/quote]

You didn’t specify what you wanted until after my post. There are dozens of examples online, just look in any search engine. Some of them even have videos. With that being said, I was not being immature. I believe you have a bias on the issue and anything provided would be somehow refuted, at least based on how you refuted the Biden examples, which were clearly asinine comments stated by a politician while he was in office.

But, if you won’t use Google…
http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/12/29581-the-15-most-stupid-things-liberals-said-in-2013/

http://www.trommetter.com/log/archives/2009/10/15/10-dumb-racist-things-democrats-have-said/

44

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Yes I read the news too. That’s not prior knowledge of the 911 attacks. It constitutes a non-specific warning about an al Qaeda attack. Two very different things.

45

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Quit being immature. You posted a bunch of incidences of lunatics, not politicians doing and saying stupid/dangerous shit, and one incidence of that Franken asshole talking about rape when he wasn’t a politician.
So yeah, you’ll have to do better. Suck it up.
[/quote]

You didn’t specify what you wanted until after my post. There are dozens of examples online, just look in any search engine. Some of them even have videos. With that being said, I was not being immature. I believe you have a bias on the issue and anything provided would be somehow refuted, at least based on how you refuted the Biden examples, which were clearly asinine comments stated by a politician while he was in office.
[/quote]

A couple of things:

–It’s pretty obvious that relevant examples would involve only elected officials and unelected but still notable pundits, commentators, and party luminaries. [By these standards, I would not include the example cited in the OP, because I don’t concern myself with what State Senators say and do, which is often stupid.]

–It is important, when talking about politics, that we think politically. Philosophically (and tautologically), a stupid remark is a stupid remark, and it is often difficult–though not always impossible–to determine which ones are “worse” or more dangerous than others.

By contrast, through the lens of politics, narratives are the primary currency. Stupid remarks are damaging insofar as they feed into a negative narrative that is already taking hold or has already taken hold.

Take Biden. What’s the narrative? “This guy says some loony fuckin shit.” It just isn’t nefarious enough. He’s almost embraced it as an endearing quirk.

By contrast, take the relevant narrative that’s been wrapped around the Republican Party: They are backwards, homophobic, misogynist. (And let’s be honest with ourselves here: They’ve done their part in earning this badge, exaggerated though it is. If you can’t talk about gays/rape/female sexuality without sounding like a scrofulous medieval peasant, keep you Goddamn mouth shut…or be deservedly shooed away by off-put members of the 21st century, and enjoy your loss on election day.)

–Which is to say that if 2016, for example, becomes another election about narratives, Republicans are looking at another loss. What narrative is going to be hung around Hillary’s neck?

  1. Benghazi isn’t going to work. It’ll get all the real partisans riled up, but that’s it.

  2. “She’s just such a cunt”–imply that one often enough, and you’re looking at a Biblical female backlash on election day.

By contrast, make it simple–even simpler than Romney made it–and run on a set of relatively easy-to-grasp numbers (debt, deficit, unemployment, economy), resisting all the while the urge to make yourself look like an anachronistic twat on the subject of, say, dudes kissing each other, and you may just take the cake back. I’ll certainly vote for you.

A lot of people don’t like this kind of thing. “But these are our issues!” Well, then, stick with’em and keep looking into the White House windows from the outside.

46

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

By contrast, take the relevant narrative that’s been wrapped around the Republican Party: They are backwards, homophobic, misogynist…

[/quote]

Only a faggot or a typical woman would think that.

[quote]

–Which is to say that if 2016, for example, becomes another election about narratives, Republicans are looking at another loss. What narrative is going to be hung around Hillary’s neck?

  1. Benghazi isn’t going to work. It’ll get all the real partisans riled up, but that’s it.

  2. “She’s just such a cunt”–imply that one often enough, and you’re looking at a Biblical female backlash on election day.

By contrast, make it simple–even simpler than Romney made it–and run on a set of relatively easy-to-grasp numbers (debt, deficit, unemployment, economy), resisting all the while the urge to make yourself look like an anachronistic twat on the subject of, say, dudes kissing each other, and you may just take the cake back. I’ll certainly vote for you.

A lot of people don’t like this kind of thing. “But these are our issues!” Well, then, stick with’em and keep looking into the White House windows from the outside.[/quote]

The problem is Hillary has rat cunning and the Republican establishment are thick as shit. I read about a speech Hillary gave recently and she was trying to portray herself as a conservative. She talked about families, faith, small government etc. she’s trying to position herself to the right. This will endear many voters towards her. Jeb Bush is stupidly trying to position himself to the left with calls for amnesty. This won’t endear him to anyone. It’s an idiotic strategy. It’s idiotic for Jeb to run. No one wants another Bush. No one except the Republican establishment that is.

47

By the way, I actually think that this is going to be the presidential election wherein my advice above is fully realized.

48

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

By contrast, take the relevant narrative that’s been wrapped around the Republican Party: They are backwards, homophobic, misogynist…

[/quote]

Only a faggot or a typical woman would think that.[/quote]

I see what you did there.

[quote]

[quote]

–Which is to say that if 2016, for example, becomes another election about narratives, Republicans are looking at another loss. What narrative is going to be hung around Hillary’s neck?

  1. Benghazi isn’t going to work. It’ll get all the real partisans riled up, but that’s it.

  2. “She’s just such a cunt”–imply that one often enough, and you’re looking at a Biblical female backlash on election day.

By contrast, make it simple–even simpler than Romney made it–and run on a set of relatively easy-to-grasp numbers (debt, deficit, unemployment, economy), resisting all the while the urge to make yourself look like an anachronistic twat on the subject of, say, dudes kissing each other, and you may just take the cake back. I’ll certainly vote for you.

A lot of people don’t like this kind of thing. “But these are our issues!” Well, then, stick with’em and keep looking into the White House windows from the outside.[/quote]

The problem is Hillary has rat cunning and the Republican establishment are thick as shit. I read about a speech Hillary gave recently and she was trying to portray herself as a conservative. She talked about families, faith, small government etc. she’s trying to position herself to the right. This will endear many voters towards her. Jeb Bush is stupidly trying to position himself to the left with calls for amnesty. This won’t endear him to anyone. It’s an idiotic strategy. It’s idiotic for Jeb to run. No one wants another Bush. No one except the Republican establishment that is.[/quote]

Yeah, I think his last name alone is enough of a disadvantage, and, against a woman, the Repubs are going to need every advantage they can get.

Numbers number numbers. I think Republicans take it in a numbers election, and that’s what I want to see.

49

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
–Which is to say that if 2016, for example, becomes another election about narratives, Republicans are looking at another loss. What narrative is going to be hung around Hillary’s neck?

[/quote]

This is probably what’s likely to happen in this year’s midterm elections, and again in 2016, because the Democrats have an obvious political advantage that is mostly irrelevant, politically speaking. Many of these social issues, even if the Republicans are on the wrong side, are not going to be decided at the legislative or executive level of the federal government (e.g., abortion, gay marriage, women’s access to contraception, etc.), thus they are not real issues that voters should be focusing on unless one is mostly concerned about appointments to judicial branch vacancies. In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that, even as a gay man, social issues (including gay rights) are generally one of my lesser concerns as a voter. I put the weight of my vote on far more pressing issues that are likely to have a much greater impact on our body politic (e.g., taxation, spending, deficits, candidate’s position on statism, civil liberties, etc.) in the near term. The direction the country is headed on social issues is pretty clear; I see no substantial regression here.

Thus, in the long run, these hot potato, off-color comments are not often* real issues that should even be part of the election campaign, but they make for good media fodder. Given that it is almost without exception that it is Republicans who are on the extreme side of social issues, they’ll continue to make headlines and sink themselves, but only insofar as I think voters are being detracted from making decisions on much more pressing concerns. I suspect the OP really wanted to hear examples of absurd commentary from the Democrats, specifically where it pertains only to social issues, which tends to be limited to the elephant in the room.

*Some concerns may spill over into the legislative branch, and thus by default become subject to approval by law from the executive, but probably no need to be that specific for this discussion.

50

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
–Which is to say that if 2016, for example, becomes another election about narratives, Republicans are looking at another loss. What narrative is going to be hung around Hillary’s neck?

[/quote]

This is probably what’s likely to happen in this year’s midterm elections, and again in 2016, because the Democrats have an obvious political advantage that is mostly irrelevant, politically speaking. Many of these social issues, even if the Republicans are on the wrong side, are not going to be decided at the legislative or executive level of the federal government (e.g., abortion, gay marriage, women’s access to contraception, etc.), thus they are not real issues that voters should be focusing on unless one is mostly concerned about appointments to judicial branch vacancies. In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that, even as a gay man, social issues (including gay rights) are generally one of my lesser concerns as a voter. I put the weight of my vote on far more pressing issues that are likely to have a much greater impact on our body politic (e.g., taxation, spending, deficits, candidate’s position on statism, civil liberties, etc.) in the near term. The direction the country is headed on social issues is pretty clear; I see no substantial regression here.

Thus, in the long run, these hot potato, off-color comments are not often* real issues that should even be part of the election campaign, but they make for good media fodder. Given that it is almost without exception that it is Republicans who are on the extreme side of social issues, they’ll continue to make headlines and sink themselves, but only insofar as I think voters are being detracted from making decisions on much more pressing concerns. I suspect the OP really wanted to hear examples of absurd commentary from the Democrats, specifically where it pertains only to social issues, which tends to be limited to the elephant in the room.

*Some concerns may spill over into the legislative branch, and thus by default become subject to approval by law from the executive, but probably no need to be that specific for this discussion.
[/quote]

You and I are pretty aligned on this. I want a Republican to handle the economy and that’s it, and I don’t fear that gays are suddenly going to be finding themselves rounded up and imprisoned.

Politically, though, we are in the minority. And one can understand it: “Whether he can act on it or not, this guy thinks this thing, which is repulsive to me, and because of this, he will not get my vote.”

Though it must be noted that if everybody thought like us for the next two decades, our thinking would lead to things we don’t want at all.

51

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there’s still a 30% chance we’re going to get it wrong.”
–Joe Biden, speaking to members of the House Democratic caucus who were gathered in Williamsburg, Va., for their annual retreat, Feb. 6, 2009

Both parties say dumb shit…[/quote]

I don’t see anything dumb with this, except probably the arbitrary %.

The point seems to be that we cannot ever be certain that our course of action, however justified or well thought-out it may seem, is the correct one or will even play out the way we wish it to.

I would be very happy if people actually lived with this kind of belief.[/quote]

How can you do everything correct and still have a 30% chance of failure. He said everything,which includes unknown factors. It’s a dumb comment.

I don’t really care one way or the other. Everyone says dumb things at one time or another. Not just politicians. The comments I posted also happened to be the first hits on Google, I didn’t exactly search for the “best” dumb quotes out there.

52

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

  • Seniors love getting junk mail. It?s sometimes their only way of communicating or feeling like they?re part of the real world. – Harry Reid

[/quote]

I thought Biden said that?

53

I honestly don’t think the Republicans can win. Hillary will run on her husband’s manufactured record. Remember in the 90’s when the economy was good? That was because Gingrich was blocking all the radical shit the Democrats were trying to pass Hillary. No one’s going to say that to her. The Republican establishment have no fucking idea how to run a campaign.

54

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent… I’m not joking.”
–Joe Biden, in a private remark to an Indian-American man caught on C-SPAN, June, 2006

“If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there’s still a 30% chance we’re going to get it wrong.”
–Joe Biden, speaking to members of the House Democratic caucus who were gathered in Williamsburg, Va., for their annual retreat, Feb. 6, 2009

Both parties say dumb shit…[/quote]

I wonder what Bush knew and when he knew about pilots are going to fly airplanes into targets in the US
[/quote]

Lol, wut?

55

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Okay. I thought you were suggesting that Bush had prior knowledge of 911.
[/quote]

he did [/quote]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

56

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Politically, though, we are in the minority. And one can understand it: “Whether he can act on it or not, this guy thinks this thing, which is repulsive to me, and because of this, he will not get my vote.”

Though it must be noted that if everybody thought like us for the next two decades, our thinking would lead to things we don’t want at all.[/quote]

Yeah, most people tend to be emotional voters and base their votes around one or two key issues. I think the 2014 and 2016 elections are going to be interesting, and I wonder if a respectable third party will emerge in the next decade as a legitimate, formidable opponent at the federal level.

57

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Only a faggot or a typical woman would think that.
[/quote]

You really come off as a misogynist and a bigot with that particular remark. What then is an atypical woman exactly?

Though I would argue that females are indeed a powerful voting bloc in and of themselves, gays are a fairly statistical minority. Nevertheless, there are a great number of voters who fall outside one or both of those social categories who not only think that, even if they may be misguided, but are also casting votes based on this narrative that some Republic politicians are feeding into with their oftentimes licentious commentary.

So whether or not you want to believe it, if exit polls and actual election outcomes are used as at least anecdotal evidence, there are an awful lot of straight male voters who are obviously neither “faggots,” nor women, but who are otherwise casting votes based on this prerogative too. This becomes a serious electoral problem when an ever increasing number of voters from various social categories begin to amalgamate against a party based on a combination of several distinct narratives, be it based on a false perception or not.

58

[quote]JR249 wrote:

You really come off as a misogynist and a bigot with that particular remark. What then is an atypical woman exactly?

[/quote]

smh said Repubs are viewed as homophobes and misogynists. My response was a joke. I don’t hate gays and I’m certainly not a misogynist.

59

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Only a faggot or a typical woman would think that.
[/quote]

You really come off as a misogynist and a bigot with that particular remark. What then is an atypical woman exactly?

Though I would argue that females are indeed a powerful voting bloc in and of themselves, gays are a fairly statistical minority. Nevertheless, there are a great number of voters who fall outside one or both of those social categories who not only think that, even if they may be misguided, but are also casting votes based on this narrative that some Republic politicians are feeding into with their oftentimes licentious commentary.

So whether or not you want to believe it, if exit polls and actual election outcomes are used as at least anecdotal evidence, there are an awful lot of straight male voters who are obviously neither “faggots,” nor women, but who are otherwise casting votes based on this prerogative too. This becomes a serious electoral problem when an ever increasing number of voters from various social categories begin to amalgamate against a party based on a combination of several distinct narratives, be it based on a false perception or not.[/quote]

I am pretty sure that SM was completely joking in this case. Perhaps you are taking issue with the use of the word itself, even in a parodic context–I don’t know–but I feel the need to point out that this seemed like straight (pun intended) parody to me.

60

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

I am pretty sure that SM was completely joking in this case. Perhaps you are taking issue with the use of the word itself, even in a parodic context–I don’t know–but I feel the need to point out that this seemed like straight (pun intended) parody to me.[/quote]

Okay, yeah, it flew over my head, but unless someone does something like this - :slight_smile: - sarcasm is sometimes terribly hard to detect online. I’m not really one easily offended by words per se, because words only have power if people let them, but if used in a serious context, I guess it just does scream hatred when it’s meant to be deliberately pejorative.