my date tonight and why there won't be a second one

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

No she needed to know something and at least be able to defend her position other than say " McCain is old"

Why? It's completely and totally her right to want to vote for whomever for whatever reason. Saying that someone must defend their decision on that is tantamount to saying that you do not care about the Constitution.

[Pazuzu]

For some reason I can't edit posts...

What I was going to add was:
Now, I understand what you meant, but is a small step down a very slippery slope between "I won't talk to someone if thet can't defend their political decisions!" to "That person shouldn't vote because they can't defend their political decisions!".

[the]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Why? It's completely and totally her right to want to vote for whomever for whatever reason. Saying that someone must defend their decision on that is tantamount to saying that you do not care about the Constitution.

The constitutional right to have a second date with 9dreizig?

I guess that could be covered by a very broad reading of the Third Amendment.

[the]

"Hey big boy, let me quarter your solider . . . "

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by the

The constitutional right to have a second date with 9dreizig?

I guess that could be covered by a very broad reading of the Third Amendment.

Fifth...self incrimination

[the]

Or, depending on how she looks in the morning, the Eighth.

[Pazuzu]

This is fun...

If he gets a bit to physical, then she can envoke the protection of the fourth as well

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

... No she needed to know something and at least be able to defend her position other than say " McCain is old"

I'm still not sure who I'll be voting for, but if not McCain, that WILL be the reason why. I was very much in favor of McCain (over GWB) back in '00, but I simply do not think (at 72) that he will be up to the task at hand and will simply be a figurehead for Republican party policies that disgust me anymore. I'm not an Obama (Dem) supporter either. I do know enough not to talk politics on a dinner date however, 'cause no matter who they are for, I'm surely gonna lose my appetite and want to puke

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by livi

Really?

Is general political views so crucial for you Americans, you even ditch an otherwise pleasant, intelligent woman? You need to start living outside the political box, boys! Your lives will pass you by while you are nagging like women over political issues.

I am just saying..

Not so much which side of the fence she is on, she just has no idea why she is on that side in the first place. I have dated several very liberal women, but if they supported someone, they knew why, and could speak cogently about it. Discussing it is not really the same as nagging.

Voting is important, a priviledge as much as a right. If I am uninformed on a candidate or proposed law, I abstain from voting on that race. If everybody did this, we would have far fewer shady characters in DC

Originally Posted by vash

"b-Ho"???? i dont get it. isnt it more "b_oh"?

Barack Hussein Obama, hence, Mr Obama is sometimes referred to as B-HO, with the intent to denigrate him

If I can't have a civil discussion on a broad range of subjects during an initial dinner date, why would I want a second?

[Rick Lee]

I've dated a few women who called themselves liberal, but then, once we got to discussing politics (not on the first date), were at least as conservative or libertarian as I am. They just confused the meanings of classical vs. contemporary liberalism.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Originally Posted by varmint

i run into this all the time. shame really, i love arguing politics. and having a good fight is sort of a turn on. but most liberal women, and liberals in general, can't argue. they just get offended if you contradict them.

she'll confine her dating to guys with gore 04 stickers on their hybrids, but quietly complain to her girlfriends that all the men in her life are wimps. and never make a connection between the two things.

+1 - I love a good debate. I also enjoy fencing with people I agree with, because it's that exercise that hones my positions and shows me the strengths/weaknesses of my and others' arguments.

My personal experience is that most on the Left are simply not equipped for forensic challenge. Not only do they get frustrated (and, often, LOUD!) which further tongue-ties them, but their trembling incoherence is synergized by deeply personal umbrage at the destruction of the shibboleth du jour. They take it so personally.

Then they try to get personal, which is a hoot! Just some random "I heard this witty cutting thing somewhere, so it will zing you" feebleness. It is truly awesome when somebody who doesn't know me and is being crushed starts with the "dumb" or "lay-person" or the "well, you're just _________".

This is not to say that it's ALL people on the Left, or that moderates and righties are uniquely equipped for debate; however, most big-picture Leftist positions (and politicians) are sold to people -- the marketing analogy in an earlier post is very apt, IMHO -- and do not stand up to scrutiny. MSM thinks we're stupid and the message they sell and the messages they propagandize are not to be parsed, but swallowed whole. Simply look at the unquestioning, uncritical delivery of Obamessiah's message and its fawning evangelization to the masses.

Another almost universal tactic is the topic-changement gambit. Once cornered on Topic X, you can actually see the panic, and then the "well what about (unrelated) Topic Y?!?!" ploy (and they obviously know as much about Topic Y as Topic X ... but desperation has set in). My usual response is a slight smirk and "oh, I'd be happy to talk about Topic Y, but how about we don't run away from Topic X just yet. Let's put a bookmark (bunny fingers quotes) on Topic Y and resolve Topic X first." Continued smirk.

Another flavor of this "tactic" is "You are Conservative Evil Incarnate" approach, a/k/a the "I can't defend my position, so I'll attack some random Conservative position (or, more likely, a caricature thereof) as though you've espoused it". If we're talking specifically about Lefty Position A, which they have espoused and defended, when that gleam of panic strikes, I get Conservative Position A thrown in my face. Now, just to let facts clutter this up for a second, I haven't espoused Conservative Position A, nor do I believe or see much merit in Conservative Position A. I'll usually ask "are you looking for your keys over here because the light's better?"

Add to this calculus the likelihood that, the hotter the girl, the more deference/ intellectual slack she's received from everyone in her life.

I think 9dreizing saved himself, and the benighted twist, a lot of frustration. No naked, sweaty squirt has been worth my pandering to some dumb broad.

If she had an informed position on any of the issues, then you can agree to disagree, or even have fun with your differences. Her position was specifically, and almost willfully unenlightened. If you're not specifically informed about politics, treat it like surgery, private aviation or big-game hunting: don't try to "dabble" in it.

JP

[Superman]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

Hardly,, you've totally missed the point, try going back and reading a few of the posts above
No she needed to know something and at least be able to defend her position other than say " McCain is old"

I do understand. You are suggesting she is not sufficiently informed. She did not have sufficient responses to your questions.

Notice this: Your responses are insufficient in my view. You mentioned oil drilling, coal, racist wife, raised taxes, etc. All those assumptions are 100% unsupported and have no basis whatsoever in fact. Someone holding these opinions would be more incorrect, and less informed than someone holding no opinion whatsoever on those matters.

Sorry, dude. You didn't dump her because she was underinformed. You dumped her because she lacks the misunderstandings you have.

[Superman]

"Too old" is a good enough reason all by itself. And quite frankly, it betrays a level of awareness above that of the typical voter.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by livi

Really?

Is general political views so crucial for you Americans, you even ditch an otherwise pleasant, intelligent woman? You need to start living outside the political box, boys! Your lives will pass you by while you are nagging like women over political issues.

I am just saying..

I'm with Livi on this one, you boys take yourselves and you politics WAY too seriously.

[9dreizig]

Originally Posted by Superman

"Too old" is a good enough reason all by itself. And quite frankly, it betrays a level of awareness above that of the typical voter.

Clearly the 10 months of rain you get up there has soaked your brain beyond repair..

[Superman]

Originally Posted by varmint

i run into this all the time. shame really, i love arguing politics. and having a good fight is sort of a turn on. but most liberal women, and liberals in general, can't argue. they just get offended if you contradict them.

Really? I can provide you with a LONG list of liberals you would have no fun arguing with at all.

Any time you're in Seattle, let me know. I can provide you with a virtually endless parade of beers, and all the debate for which you have time. This business of "libers' understanding is sooooooo shallow" doesn't pass the straight face test.

Tell me again how the Liberal Media and the Liberal University System is packed with people who know nothing. Yes, college professors tend to be liberal. Yes, media people tend to be liberal. It amuses me endlessly to hear conservatives declare these people, the information traffickers in our society, to be poorly informed and without ammunition for debate.

There is a direct correlation between level of education and liberalism. The correlation between level of education and conservatism is inverse. It is a negative "r" value.

But it is very funny to hear folks pretend that liberals are not informed. Liberals are not armed with data or information or education. That's a good one.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by Tobra

I abstain from voting on that race. If everybody did this, we would have far fewer shady characters in DC

race? shady?

[Superman]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

Clearly the 10 months of rain you get up there has soaked your brain beyond repair..

I am stunned by your flawless and unassailable logic.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by Superman

I am stunned by your flawless and unassailable logic.

Duh. He's a conservative, and you're a liberal, and therefore, he knows better than you.

At least he claims to be a conservative...

So there.

[mattdavis11]

Damn Pazu, are you one of those Dan Patrick right wingers that everyone laughs at?

I sure hope not. That's one of the larger jokes that has ever set foot inside the Capitol doors in Austin. I'm sure you care not b/c Arizona is far more conservative, and runs a tighter show anyway, but I'm just curious, do you align yourself with that man, and is he your State Senator?

I could care less what politcal team the woman I am dating roots for, and I'm not going to be turned off by her politcal stance. Some of the younger republican chicks are the worst lay in the world because they worry too much about the repercussions, others will blow your mind.