FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Can you define wingnut?





handfleisch
Like most of America, I am grooving on the election of Obama. So have decided to focus on the positive for the time being.

I notice that many wingnuts have quieted down now too, and the few that remain loud have gotten introspective, often asking themselves, "am I a wingnut?"

So to close the last chapter in the neocon era, it might help to define wingnut. Please add your own definitions.

One wingnut tendency is to see things as good vs evil, right vs wrong, which keeps them from seeing basic reality. Like when I try to point out that voter registration fraud doesn't affect elections (Mickey Mouse doesn't vote), while active voter fraud does, a wingnut might reply
Quote:
"So are you saying some types of fraud are ok, but other are not?"
At that point we would see that the wingnut would never connect these two dots, no matter how close they are.

Wingnuts tend to live in a fantasy world of a mythical past. They might write
Quote:
"out of the two parties the Republicans hold more of the Libertarian ideals (at least in principle), such as smaller government, individual rights, etc."
despite the actions of the Republican Party in wild deficit spending, creation of new governmental departments and erosion of individual rights during their last several administrations.

Recently, another sign of wingnuts were terms used to describe Obama, like saying that he is "extremely far left", believes in "murdering children", that he has "radical views".
Quote:
if you actually look at his positions, he's extremely far left and many just don't make sense (socialized medicine, murdering children who survive abortion attempts, thinking that negotiating with those who are willing to blow themselves up just to take out a few of us will cause them to change their stance, raising taxes when the economy is fragile, etc).

Besides his radical views...


Also, wingnuts tend to be just plain wrong.
Quote:
when Barack loses it will be seen and chalked up to "racism" and not wanting to vote for someone who just happens to be black.


Okay, that's it for me on this negative stuff, because
jmi256
I see that since you are unable to make your arguments hold water you've decided to take snippets out of context.

Classy. And not a "wingnut" tactic at all (please note the sarcasm).
myleshi
How do I say wingnut? handfleisch.
ocalhoun
myleshi wrote:
How do I say wingnut? handfleisch.

Seconded. (And I hope I won't have to see the pie picture in yet another post later on.)

For tendancy to see things in black and white, how about your assertions that opposing posts were very sleazy, and yours were not at all, while the truth was that both were sleazy?

As for fantasy worlds of the mythical past: I don't know about the mythical past, but I do know you have this odd fantasy world where no democrat would ever cheat in voting.

The next two criteria you have for wingnut-ness just show your own prejudice.
Basically what you're saying in those two is 'anyone who disagrees with me is a wingnut'.


Lets go with a better established source for a definition, which actually portrays you in a more favorable light, and makes you absolutely immune to being called a wingnut:

Quote:
Wingnut is a term currently used in U.S. politics as a political epithet referring to anyone that holds extremely conservative views or supports far right-wing politics. Moonbat is an analogous epithet aimed at extremists on the political left.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingnut (politics)


Now, your definition:
Quote:

Wingnut is a term currently used in U.S. politics as a polite title referring to anyone that holds ________ conservative views or supports ___ right-wing politics.

Only needs slight editing to be acceptable.
handfleisch
Joe the Plumber became Joe the Wingnut when he argued that a vote for Obama was a vote for "death to Israel". Given that Obama got almost 80% of the Jewish vote, no one took him seriously, showing that this was fringe wingnuttery at its finest.

Thank god their reign is over
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Joe the Plumber became Joe the Wingnut when he argued that a vote for Obama was a vote for "death to Israel". Given that Obama got almost 80% of the Jewish vote, no one took him seriously, showing that this was fringe wingnuttery at its finest.

Thank god their reign is over

I was hoping you'd have some direct response to people's posts here, rather than just adding on an irrelevant rant.

And at leas you had a different obnoxious image this time.
handfleisch
More wingnut definitions that we don't have to go far to find. They leave messages like this
Quote:

Long live the Terrorist King.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-99978.html

I am glad that we are entering a time when such idiocy might be less popular. Though with the continuing agenda of Hannity/Limbaugh etc and their dittohead sheep that might be too optimistic, but it's a time of hope so I'm going to chance it.
handfleisch
More examples. Actually, these border on trollery.

Item A: Wingnuts write "Barry Hussein"
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-100398.html

Quote:
Barry Hussein does not have the moral fortitude to make any kind of decision and stick to it. He will only be "present".


Item B: Their epic loss has given wingnuts chance to spew the term "Terrorist in Chief".
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-100333.html

Quote:
The Terrorist in Chief will probably have them come to dinner at the white house to start making ammends for their mistreatments.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Actually, these border on trollery.

This whole thread has bordered on trollery from the beginning.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Actually, these border on trollery.

This whole thread has bordered on trollery from the beginning.


That's almost funny. Aren't you the one who asked for a definition of "wingnut" in the first place? And when I supply examples, you say it's borderline trollery?

As for my intent, it's good to keep a thread going on the wackier things the RW attack machine is going to be producing, since it seems to be gearing up to create the same relentless BS storm that was aimed at Clinton (Foster Suicide case, Paula Jones case, etc).

I was really hoping that this wouldn't be the case, since the country is in much worse condition than when the first Bush left office, and arguably worse than when the Republicans left office in the mid-70's. And since Obama is being very centrist-to-conservative in his appointments and plans, I thought maybe the forces that be would back off for lack of credibility (or just for plain enlightened self-interest) at this point. But it doesn't seem to be.

What new variations of "Obama is a muslim terrorist with a dangerous Christian preacher mentor and a fake birth certificate who refuses to salute the US flag or wear a lapel pin" are in store for us?

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/111108.html
Quote:
(During the 80's) a powerful right-wing media had come into its own, built in part as a defense mechanism to shield Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush from criticism.

Besides Limbaugh and the bevy of other talk radio hosts, right-wing print outlets had grown in number and in influence, the likes of the American Spectator and The Washington Times, not to mention The Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages and conservative columnists in newspapers across the country.

Many of the commentators also appeared on TV political chat shows to reprise their opinions for millions of more Americans nationwide.

Mainstream journalists at outlets such as NBC News and The New York Times also joined in the Clinton bashing, seemingly eager to prove that they could be tougher on a Democrat than any Republican. They were determined to show they weren’t the “liberal media” that the conservatives long had railed against.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Actually, these border on trollery.

This whole thread has bordered on trollery from the beginning.


That's almost funny. Aren't you the one who asked for a definition of "wingnut" in the first place? And when I supply examples, you say it's borderline trollery?


Yes, as a matter of fact I do. A simple definition (not numerous 'examples') posted as a reply in that thread would have been quite sufficient.
Quote:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/111108.html

Rolling Eyes Now that's an unbiased source!
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Actually, these border on trollery.

This whole thread has bordered on trollery from the beginning.


That's almost funny. Aren't you the one who asked for a definition of "wingnut" in the first place? And when I supply examples, you say it's borderline trollery?


Yes, as a matter of fact I do. A simple definition (not numerous 'examples') posted as a reply in that thread would have been quite sufficient.


Well, it's your lucky day, you got the bonus package. Anyway as things evolve, there were so many examples to add to the definition of wingnut that now this thread serves to document its continuing metastasizing.

ocalhoun wrote:


Quote:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/111108.html

Rolling Eyes Now that's an unbiased source!


You're funny, with your conniption fits about sources, I guess because you use so many poor ones. If you would maybe pause to look and think about it, you would see that I provided that link to show what I was talking about, not to cite an ultimate proof on this or that fact.

But the real question is, why are you obsessing on my posts and not on the wingnuts spewing about the "terrorist in chief"?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

But the real question is, why are you obsessing on my posts and not on the wingnuts spewing about the "terrorist in chief"?

Because you do that for me ^.^
Yes, certain others are posting just as poorly as you, though on the other side of the line. I often cringe when reading their posts, but since I often agree with their point of view, if not their way of expressing it, I tend to just ignore them.

I wonder... did you even look at any of the third party candidates in the election before you went all-out in support of Obama?
handfleisch
Let me get this straight -- you agree with the point of view of calling Obama the "terrorist in chief" but cringe at the way it's expressed? Could you then please express it in your own, more mature terms? It sounds fascinating.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Let me get this straight -- you agree with the point of view of calling Obama the "terrorist in chief" but cringe at the way it's expressed? Could you then please express it in your own, more mature terms? It sounds fascinating.

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't agree with calling Obama the 'terrorist in chief'.
I do, however, agree that Obama will be too soft on the terrorists, and have heard rumors that he actually might be dangerously sympathetic to them.
I worry that he might reverse the policy of not negotiating with terrorists and not giving in to terrorist demands, which might reduce problems in the short term, but will create huge problems in the long term.

And I am still left wondering, did you look at any of the third party candidates in the last election?
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
I don't agree with calling Obama the 'terrorist in chief'.
I do, however, agree that Obama will be too soft on the terrorists, and have heard rumors that he actually might be dangerously sympathetic to them.
I worry that he might reverse the policy of not negotiating with terrorists and not giving in to terrorist demands, which might reduce problems in the short term, but will create huge problems in the long term.

And I am still left wondering, did you look at any of the third party candidates in the last election?


As I hoped, this is getting good.

How exactly does one agree that Obama will do something? You mean you agree with other fortune tellers?

And on the second point, again, let me try to get this straight. You have heard rumors. Hmm. That Obama. Might be. Dangerously sympathetic. To Terrorists. I'm just trying to get my head around that one.

"Rumors." Really, could you tell us more? "Dangerous." For real? "Sympathetic to terrorists." No kidding?

I am beginning to see why you'd rather change the subject to third party candidates.

In all seriousness, would you mind telling us where you get these ideas (the source of the rumors, your main places you hear political info)? Is it friends and family, or some talkshow like Limbaugh, Hannity, or Michael Savage, or some publication? Really, it would be interesting to know.
liljp617
I have a proposal: Everybody relax for a month and pick it up later...
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:


How exactly does one agree that Obama will do something? You mean you agree with other fortune tellers?

There are other ways to predict the future than "fortune telling" I look at how things are now, and think about how they're likely to develop. And with Obama's stance on the issues, personality, and some of his statements, it makes me think that he probably will be soft on terrorism. No magic or voodoo involved.
Quote:

And on the second point, again, let me try to get this straight. You have heard rumors. Hmm. That Obama. Might be. Dangerously sympathetic. To Terrorists. I'm just trying to get my head around that one.

"Rumors." Really, could you tell us more? "Dangerous." For real? "Sympathetic to terrorists." No kidding?

In all seriousness, would you mind telling us where you get these ideas (the source of the rumors, your main places you hear political info)? Is it friends and family, or some talkshow like Limbaugh, Hannity, or Michael Savage, or some publication? Really, it would be interesting to know.

Yes the sources of that information are questionable: that's why I called them 'rumors', you see.
Quote:

I am beginning to see why you'd rather change the subject to third party candidates.


I don't want to change the topic, I just want a simple yes or no answer, which could be slipped into a reply without changing the topic, or even PM'ed to me.

liljp617 wrote:
I have a proposal: Everybody relax for a month and pick it up later...

Aw, but I'm having too much fun...
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
I have a proposal: Everybody relax for a month and pick it up later...


I agree to that. Anyway arguing politics with someone who thinks Obama might be a terrorist sympathizer is like discussing religion with a Scientologist.

ocalhoun wrote:

Aw, but I'm having too much fun...

Good luck with your private chuckles.
www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_11/012448.php
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I have a proposal: Everybody relax for a month and pick it up later...


I agree to that. Anyway arguing politics with someone who thinks Obama might be a terrorist sympathizer is like discussing religion with a Scientologist.


And discussing religion with a Scientologist is a bad thing how?
Are you advocating shutting yourself away from ideas you don't agree with?

... still wondering if you looked at 3rd party candidates ...
a simple yes or no would do nicely, and I would stop asking.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I have a proposal: Everybody relax for a month and pick it up later...


I agree to that. Anyway arguing politics with someone who thinks Obama might be a terrorist sympathizer is like discussing religion with a Scientologist.


And discussing religion with a Scientologist is a bad thing how?
Are you advocating shutting yourself away from ideas you don't agree with?.


Awesome. Thanks for proving my point so splendidly. It's no surprise someone who believes Obama could be a terrorist sympathizer might also accept, as a credible theological position, that an intergalactic warlord named "Xenu" brought a bunch of aliens to Earth in a DC10-like spaceship to kill them on volcanoes a long time ago and now the spirits of these dead space aliens inhabit our bodies and cause our sadness and the only way to be free of them is to pay money to a so-called religion invented by a hack sci-fi writer. It's perfect, really.

Which brings us to a new definition: wingnuts are sorta the Scientologists of politics.

ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
accept, as a credible theological position, that an intergalactic warlord named "Xenu" brought a bunch of aliens to Earth in a DC10-like spaceship to kill them on volcanoes a long time ago and now the spirits of these dead space aliens inhabit our bodies and cause our sadness and the only way to be free of them is to pay money to a so-called religion invented by a hack sci-fi writer. It's perfect, really.


Discussing religion with a scientologist does not require that you accept their theological positions as credible.

Its called being open minded... you should try it sometime.

Oh, and I'll make you a deal... You stop ending posts with pictures, and I'll stop asking you if you looked at third party candidates... deal?
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
Its called being open minded... you should try it sometime.


It's called being so open-minded that your brain falls out. Get well soon.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Its called being open minded... you should try it sometime.


It's called being so open-minded that your brain falls out. Get well soon.

So, exactly how open minded is too much, eh? Anything open enough to consider ideas you don't agree with?
mathiaus
I'm closing this before I do something I'd later regeret.

-close-
Related topics
do you like Rock or Rap?
Script php about gallery
[php scripts ] phpweather&email
How would you personaly define a "quality" post?
Windows XP the best?
What do your define as Service Learning?
Why the Democrats don't have any great leaders either..
Cycles and the decline of creativity
How do you define mathematics?
Obama down in polls
How do you define racism?
Wingnut Deputy Att. General fired for anti-protester comment
#define inf 1<<20
To Define is to Limit
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.