December, hypocritical simpleton

“Real people” hang out in IMHO and not GD?

Anyway, I’m not normally one to defend december, who I agree with on next to nothing and think in the past has deserved some of his pittings for his occasionally squirrely debate tactics, but I do have to agree with most ( or all ) of the folks in this thread - he didn’t deserve this one.

I don’t agree with all of the lines of reasoning in his post, either. But you did solicit opinions and his seemed to be an honest one and consistent with views he has expressed in the past. I don’t see a lot of hypocrisy in that.

  • Tamerlane

Nope, I don’t think december is either a hypocrite or a simpleton. He seems pretty damn bright to me, and despite the fact that I disagree with him about almost everything, he’s always kind and courteous.

And yes, the man has an agenda. So what? At least he doesn’t act like an ass about it.

Woof, nogginhead. It was mildly amusing to see your close-minded translations… until I realized you kinda seemed like a backed-up toilet with no plunger in sight.

So uhh… maybe you should go to some other board. Perhaps one designed for 13 year olds? They might be more easily swayed by your “arguments” (and I use the term loosely).

Game, Set, Match - December.

PS: Which is kinda sad, seeing as he didn’t even show up.

I’m a Republican.

But I support gay rights, I think the War on Drugs (and, to a very slightly lesser extent, the War on Terrorism) is utterly idiotic, I am pro-abortion, I am not in favor of war in Iraq, I am very critical of Israel, I often laugh at Rush Limbaugh’s waggling double chin, I would love to see the development of more “ecologically friendly” fuels, I think extreme religious devotion is one of the most dangerous threats to our country, I think Creationism is an utterly ludicrous idea, I am EXTREMELY liberal regarding social issues, I think people should be allowed to walk around naked if they so desire, I think children should have more exposure to “adult” themes, I think many drugs should have their restrictions lifted, I love to drink, smoke pot, shout foul-mouthed obscenities at the top of my lungs, download crazy perverted bizarre hentai porn, and commit lewd acts of licentiousness on a daily basis.

But I’m a Republican.

I’d suggest that you not have to narrow an opinion on Republicans, okey-dokey?

So you are the democratic wing of the Republicans, something like that?

To what policies of the Republican Party do you subscribe, SPOOFE? Economic?

Pretty much, 'Pun… fiscally conservative, socially liberal. And I like guns.

Wow, I think nogginhead’s little effort to “translate” december’s statements tells us one thing…there’s a new spinmaster on the block. Supporting school vouchers is equivalent to forcing poor people into religious schools?? Wow, way to skip the intervening 8 or 9 steps in that argument and jump right for the absurd conclusion! I think there’s a future for you writing talking points for the DNC.

And I agree with Muad’dib, you were clearly baiting GOP voters to enter your thread expecting that you’d tear them a new one, like every typical young left-winger who views the opposition as unenlightened drooling idiots.

I’m not a Republican, I’m a libertarian, and I’d probably agree with some of your more tame positions (or at least those of your party), but I have no respect for your outlandish spin jobs.

Well, you may vote GOP, but with those beliefs you outlined in your prior post, I’d say that ideologically you’re a softcore libertarian. Not all libertarians believe in scrapping the state entirely, but basically all libertarians share just those simple ideas you stated. Fiscal conservative, social liberal, supporter of gun rights. Libertarians exist on both sides of the abortion and death penalty issues, from my side (anti-abortion, anti-death penalty) to the opposite, and every combination in between. Some libertarians believe in almost NO government except domestic and foreign security, some believe that the state could retain control over roads, the postal service, and a few other odds and ends.

So you can keep voting GOP, but I can welcome you as a philosophical libertarian brother-in-arms?

SPOOFE, 'nother question for you, if you don’t mind (seeing as the OP has been, ah, detoothed).

Were a candidate to come along, with a reasonable chance of winning that election, and were said candidate to be seen by you as representing most of those views you previously espoused in this thread, what would be the most important ones to you? I take it that fiscal conservativism (a position I hold with you, I think) is important to you. What would sway your vote from the Republican candidate to that one?


Not the first time I’ve been told that, and, indeed, I’m not entirely comfortable in the Republican party, and I’m hardly its biggest supporter.

Sure. It’s great to be welcomed. :smiley:


Probably the issues that I think are currently the “most wronged”. Right now, Dubya’s alleged desire to the contrary aside, I think abortion is a pretty safe issue (that is, if nothing is changed, I’d be pretty happy with it). I imagine that someone who espoused cancelling certain idiotic programs - such as the War on Drugs - and was very critical of extreme religious influence would sway me. Someone who advocated less gun control would do the same, if it were reasonable, of course… not someone saying “People should be allowed to own nukes if they want to!”

Oh, I’m also a huge supporter of space exploration. If a candidate were to say “If I were elected president, I’d have NASA well on its way to sending a man to Mars by the end of my term” (and, well, if it looked like he could realistically do it), he’d have my vote, as well.

Spoofe already answered, but since I’m a Repub. too and his positions and mine match about 90%, you can welcome ME as a philosophical libertarian brother in arms too! :smiley: I’ve been one for years and I alway vote in the primaries in hopes of dragging the Republican party towards the libertarian side.

Hell, I’d even vote libertarian some of the time if the Colorado Libertarian party didn’t keep nominating insane people.

(Yes. Insane. I’m not using ‘insane’ to mean “People I don’t like”, but rather “People who should be institutionalized.” The last guy they nominated was running around saying that anyone he disagreed with on a number of issues should be “hung by the neck until dead.” Some of the issues included if they voted FOR concealed carry. :rolleyes: Try reconciling THAT with the non-initiation of fraud or force.)

Um…oh yeah. I’d say “fuck the OP” but he’s just too damn stupid to waste an insult upon.


The downside of what is effectively a two party system, is that not all people will fit in. Like SPOOFE here. Sure, lots of voters will just mindlessly assume the party programme without criticism (on both sides of the spectrum), but the more critical ones are basically choosing a party which has the most values in common with their own ideas. More political parties (with any relevant power, that is) would ensure that people would find a programme that would fit their needs better.

Then again, you’d have to deal with coalitions and all that sort of commie Euro-crap, which is a pain in the ass as well. :slight_smile:

This is almost as bad as that disgusting piece of shit thread mocking someone’s supposed personal appearance, based on their politics and their expression of their political thought.

The entire OP could have been replaced with “december == Republicans == conservatives == evil”, and left at that.

Shit Anth, try to keep up. The conservative stage was dropped as redundant at the last clique meeting, it’s “december == Republicans == evil” now for brevity.

No fan of decemebers politics, debate tactics, positions etc, but this was unwarrented IMnsHO.

I think many of us come by our political leanings through personal experiences. there’s certainly data to support damn near any position you wish, we all weight things differently. So, when he (and I believe honestly) told you how he came to this transformation, I believe that he was reporting accurately. I don’t see it as hypocritical.

but, in point of fact, for this pitting, he did exactly as you asked, gave his reasons. To step in later and (essentially) say ‘well those are stupid reasons’ belies your original intent, to soliticit reasons why.

bad form.

Thank you all for the accolades. I guess people disagree with december but also disagree with using his own tactics back at him.

Folks, there’s a difference between argument and debate. In debate, you make your point and attack your opponent’s points fairly. In an argument, you’re just fighting, and blows below the belt are to be expected, along with statement you know to be false, IMO.

Unlike december, I wouldn’t dream of claiming most of my translations are part of a debate. They’re an attack, pure and simple. (That’s one reason I put it here instead of in GD. Also because I think the ideas of one person who lacks practical policy input are not worthy of actual debate.)

Of course, I could rephrase all the attacks as if they were arguments and post them in GD. Would that make anyone happy? Not me it wouldn’t. That’s what december does, and it lowers the quality of the debate and distracts us from discussing issues like adults.

Many of my snide and sophomoric attacks may be poor, but I stand by the overall message: December offers no positive statements in favor of the GOP. His ideas seem to come from talk radio, rather than from intelligent consideration. His main issue is not that the Republicans are right but that they are better than the Democrats.

While many may agree that the latter is a reason to vote GOP (and I would neither argue nor debate the point) they are not a reason to support the GOP in the way that december does: blindly and without consideration of fact or implication.

I see how it would appear to you that way, and I want to assure you that my initial request was genuine. I put it in IMHO, and was sincerely chagrined when my instincts caused me to question the response that one person gave. However, IMO, when it moved to GD, it became an argument, de facto and de jure. I believe whatever you post in GD is fair game for dissection.

I was particularly fond of nogginhead’s accusations that december saw everything as black and white - two sentences after nogginhead classified every Republican candidate in America as “anti-choice”.

So nogginhead starts a thread in IMHO, moves to GD, and winds up in the Pit - and makes himself look bad in all three.

Congratulations on your trifecta.


Yes. Yes exactly.
Still, even though you wrote this, the rest of your post leaves me unconvinced that you truly understand what you just wrote in this introductory paragraph.

We disagree with the tactic and we will argue against anyone that uses them. To rant that december does worse is the petulant whine of a 5 year old. “But mooooooom, december hit me first!” Yeah? Maybe he did a week ago but he was just sitting on the couch reading a book when you went up and slapped him.

You’re not better than december by putting a rant here rather than GD. There need be no rant. It was in great debates, so fucking debate. “Dissection” of an argument does not mean throwing out any semblence of logic or rational thought in order to make a point, whether it be in GD or the Pit.