Stupid Republican idea of the day

I largely agree with you, Pizza. adaher seems relatively soft-spoken, has moderate views, and is often better informed than most Republicans who post here.

But I do find him irritating. My reasons may be different from others, so I’m speaking only for myself.

First and foremost, adaher makes up facts. Like many of the Republican politicians he admires, true statistics or recall is irrelevant to him – he considers it his “opponent’s” job to find the lies, by which time adaher has moved onto new lies. Best is to ignore any factual content in an adaher post unless it’s accompanied by a cite. As you’ll imagine, this gets frustrating.

What the Board really needs is a sincere, intelligent, moderate Republican. But these are few and far between. The “best” of the lot are “fiscal conservatives”, but in post-rational American diction a “fiscal conservative” is no longer a budget-balancer, it’s someone who wants to lower spending AND taxes to Starve the Beast. Setting aside the [del]Beast Starvers[/del] “fiscal conservatives” :rolleyes: and Hyper-Libertartians, what we’re left with on the far right are adaher, Blowhards and Clowns.

We centrists and leftists delight in Clowns like Clothahump and Terr - they reinforce our sense that the GOP caters to stupidity. We don’t want to insult them too much, lest they go away and stop amusing us. Yet, almost everyone who posts at SDMB has a three-digit IQ; many of the stupidest-sounding Republiopathic Clowns here may have successful careers which rely on intellectual achievement.

Then come the Blowhards like Bricker and Sam Stone, with just as twisted a grip on reality as Clothahump, but capable of much more erudite expression. Frankly I greatly prefer an honest (“I hate niggers and faggots”) sort of Republican over an insincere champion of rhetoric like Bricker. Stone twisted his panties into a knot when I demonstrated his ignorance about Braess’ Paradox, but he’ll soon be back spouting his infantile view of libertarianism.

One thing that exasperates me about an adaher, is that he often seems well-informed and moderate. One wonders why he aligns with the Republiopaths. Is it just tradition? He supported the GOP when they were a moderate right-wing party and hasn’t grasped that they’ve turned into the party of lunatics and hypocrites? No, he seems happy to embrace the hypocrisy himself, if not the lunacy.

Recently in an Elections thread, adaher asked which Republican candidate for President centrists “might even support.” This shows a brain completely disjoint from reality; at this point any rational-thinking American would support a Democrat for President no matter what.

This particular thread has led a few to ignore him. His repeated attempts to hijack this thread and make it another episode of the Adaher show hasn’t been making him very popular.

I don’t have him on ignore but have made it a personal policy not to respond to him in this thread. I wish others would do the same.

Because this thread is supposed to be our safe haven for anti-R bigotry, and then addie comes in and tries to convince us, “hey, Rs are people too”. We don’t need that shit in here.

Perhaps you missed this thread: In the history of the SDMB has anyone ever been wrong about more things than adaher?

He basically spews bullshit and lies without any thought as to whether any of it is true and in the time you take to disprove everything he says he has already spewed five more things. He is just wrong, over and over again, and the fact that he is wrong and proven wrong constantly in no way shape or form stops him from continuing to be wrong. He seems to be reasonable and moderate but being proven wrong almost every single time does absolutely nothing to change his thinking.

Yes, he’s under the mistaken impression that conservative political ideas have ever been correct even once in the history of civilized society. Every single advance humanity has made has been under the banner of progressivism, liberalism, and socialism. And back in the day, when Republicans were for civil rights and Democrats weren’t, the Republicans *were *the liberal party.

All of that being said, adaher has stated that he’s often wrong. That is something you’re not going to see from a whole lot of ideologues.

And I am pretty sure I just identified myself as an ideologue. A good idea ideologue, but one nonetheless.

Anyhoo, I’ve just seen my share of far, far worse posters, because I travel to many different sites. If this guy is your big example of a wackadoodle, it’s actually a sign that this website is miles ahead of others.

I won’t get into the worse ones I’ve seen, because they’re not worth the attention, and I don’t want to be perceived as a defender troll, so I’ll leave it at that.

See this post right here?

I may not agree with most of it but there’s something respectable about that mindset that “I am not always right” and “You guys aren’t either.”

Seems like a good starting point. But, I haven’t been a part of extended adaher debates so I don’t know if that’s the conclusion I’d end up with from my starting premise.

You can probably ignore me, I don’t have a main point, I was just curious and then I have no idea when I should stop talking most of the time.

Admitting to be wrong is a nice first step, but it has to lead to a change of behavior or it is simply an empty meaningless gesture.

And this is a departure from 90 percent of humanity, particularly religious or political ideologues how?

At this point, his big sin is not changing who he is. Most everyone in this thread is utterly convinced that the Republicans are dumbfucks we shouldn’t vote for, and I doubt anything adaher or anyone else says is going to change that.

I would argue it’s because the Republicans have indeed become dumbfucks and their political platform is one only a troglodyte could take seriously, but to the fully invested water carrier of “conservatism”, that’s how they view liberals, mostly based on fringe liberal dumbasses.

We have miles and miles worth of conservative dumbasses who represent the mainstream of the GOP, so the choice seems obvious to me, but the Fox News, talk radio, GOP community has successfully convinced many that liberals are just as bad, based on a much smaller list, and a whole lot more misinformation.

People do not change affiliations lightly, that stubbornness is part of our identity. I find it unlikely you’ll convince anyone of much of anything when starting from adversarial positions, as pertains to politics or religion, and most of the debate is a fucking waste of time.

That being said, it’s still kind of worth it because if anyone is persuaded by ideas, those ideas need to be advocated.

I just don’t see adaher as being much different from the norm.

And once again I’ve spoken too much. I’m not like expecting a pat on the head or anything, I just feel compelled to go why is this, why is that, and give my views. I know it’s not always endearing or popular.

Nothing has been more wrong, or contained more factual error or inconsistency than the Bible, and I can prove it day in, and day out, and get Christians to admit it up and down, using facts.

That will. Not. Change. Their. Beliefs.

That error in humanity is in us all, to some degree. People are very stubborn.

I will still talk to stubborn Christian guy and consider his opinions. But yeah, at some point I get tired of debating too, so I don’t begrudge anyone for tuning out. Don’t get me wrong about that.

Here’s an example of adaher’s being very annoying – he makes a specific assertion about my beliefs in post #5. I challenge him on it, and he ignores it multiple times, even stating he has no interest in backing up his assertion.

He does this all the friggin’ time. He makes an assertion about a poster or something political, refuses to back it up, and when challenged on it, just ignores the challenge or moves on to another topic.

He’s an incredibly lazy poster. He seems to put no value on being correct. If he just spent an extra few seconds reading over his posts and asking himself “is this assertion really true?”, he’d correct 95% of his screwups. He loves to post about politics, but he seems to have no interest in actually finding out if his beliefs and assertions are actually true.

It’s gotten to the point that I don’t trust a single thing he posts without a cite, and most of the time even if he has a cite he’s misunderstood it and it doesn’t say what he thinks it does (or even refutes his own point!).

Other than that he seems like a perfectly nice guy.

That’s a solid point. That would get extremely tiresome very quickly.

I’m understanding it more now. Thanks much for satisfying this curiosity.

In terms of getting your opponents to respect you in a debate, or to be taken seriously, there are some debate rules you should follow, and deviating from them will lose you a lot of cred and respect.

Not the worst crime in the thread universe, but one that is going to cost you big time in the long run.

Well that still leaves a couple of questions. First, it is true that you guys routinely deliver pizzas to a roomful of hot sorority chickitas, but they don’t have enough for a tip and give you blowjobs itstead? And secondly, who do you have to kill to get the job? And how much per hour do you have to pay to keep it?

Luci- I was a pizza guy back in the day. One time I delivered a pizza to the hotel and met this really tall Russian woman in the lobby who had been a bridesmaid in a wedding and was horny because, “weddings make me horny”. She gave me her room number and I pretended to deliver a pizza there after work. She let me in- she was wearing pale-pink panties with a smirking kitty face on the front and a t-shirt. She sat me down on the bed and stuck a joint in my mouth, and told me to smoke it while she blew me!

I’m really tall, she was taller than me, and she had size f- (F!)- breasts! Never saw bigger boobs, but they weren’t out of place on her. We fucked all night long! I shit you not! The next day I was so exhausted I was sick.

Dear Penthouse Forum…

Derailment aside, let’s take a look at Michael Cannon, one of the architects of the lawsuit currently seeking to dismantle healthcare reform in the Supreme Court.

During a web debate on Thursday, he tried to defend his argument that the ACA denies subsidies to states with federally-run exchanges by citing a 2010 article by former NPR reporter Julie Rovner.

Rovner’s article in fact says nothing of the sort, a fact which was then pointed out to him by the moderator - former NPR reporter Julie Rovner.

An article datelined 12 January 2010 – two full months before the bill was passed.

Well, was the weed any good?

Word.

So you truly are old, eh?

It’s really good shit, man
OK, I’ll take a couple pounds
Do you need some papers, man?
Uh, yeah, give me a roll or two.