Comments on: David Adams On Rand Paul’s Campaign

By: Conservative

Conservative — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:46:21 +0000

Blazing Saddles?

One of the best — and most politically incorrect — movies of all time.

Maybe they should name that toll bridge on the east end of town after Greg Stumbo.

“Stumbo Thruway? What’ll that asshole think of next?”

By: NayJevin

NayJevin — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:46:13 +0000

When arguments about politics become a thing of machismo, a feeling of ‘fighting for the winning team’ or a blind spirited support of an idea like one might root for a home team in sports, it only serves to

DIVIDE US

as politicians on both sides of the aisle

BEND US OVER :)

By: E

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:07:35 +0000

Here’s some perspective.
I met Rand Paul and some of his ‘people’ today…THEY get the humor of it!

By: jake

jake — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:54:58 +0000

Anyone who thinks “Paultard” is an insult hasn’t Googled around and doesn’t understand the origin of the term.

By: Larry West

Larry West — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:18:35 +0000

My point, Taylor, is that neither side likes to be called by those words and it most likely stirs them up to anger, so in that case, they do have something in common. Both are generally used as terms of derision and neither has a place, in my opinion, in general conversation.
Granted, a ‘faggot’ is a piece of wood to be placed on a fire for burning up (see the movie Blazing Saddles, where the word was used correctly) implying that the person calling the other person that wants him to be killed, but I don’t think there are that many people who use the term realize the word’s origin. I don’t know Mr. Calvano personally, but I doubt that he really believes that Jake should be killed by fire. Neither do I believe that Jake thinks that these people have an under 60 IQ and are incapable of mentally functioning in the outside world – the fact that they are able to read and write in forums such as this shows that is an error. (But then, I don’t know Jake personally either.)
Perhaps some education is in order here — at least some consideration of civility is, on both sides.

By: E

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:07:20 +0000

Taylor…from what I can tell, all Larry was trying to say is that insults period…are unnecessary and debase the level of any discussion, causing people to become defensive, and therein removing any chance for mutually profitable progress.
…and he’s right.

By: Taylor

Taylor — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 05:20:39 +0000

Larry- please, please, please note that ‘Paultard’ and ‘faggot’ are two very different words that, other than their use as a general term of insult, have nothing in common. not the same

By: Larry West

Larry West — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:17:25 +0000

Jake: I think that it is inappropriate for you to call people names they do not like to be called, just as I think it is wrong for them to call you names, even if you are trying to make a point in doing so.
All this reminds me of the “News of the Weird” event that occured during the 2004 Republican County Convention with the name calling between John Lawlor and Peter Hayes. (See http://www.trutv.com/weird/nothing-to-be-proud-of/2004/04-16-2004-nothing-to-be-proud-of.html).
The name-calling, on both sides, is “nothing to be proud of” and should cease immediately. Please show that you are capable of taking the high road, even if some unfortunately are not able.

By: David Adams

David Adams — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:56:46 +0000

You had me running for the Urban Dictionary there, Brian, but I came up empty.

By: brian smith

brian smith — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:10:44 +0000

In my experience, anyone who uses the phrase “like a man” is highly unlikely to be any sort of threat, particularly when the phrase is used in written communication. It merely indicates a deep-seated insecurity about how their own manhood is perceived by others. It’s compensation.

And the word “faggot” speaks volumes as well. It’s compenisation.