ChrisWeigant.com

Could Ryan's Choice Put The House In Play?

[ Posted Wednesday, August 15th, 2012 – 16:54 PDT ]

Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan for his running mate is already worrying some in Republican circles. These unnamed sources (most of them refused to publicly put their name to such worries) aren't just concerned that Mitt Romney may lose the election to Barack Obama, they are also raising the possibility that Ryan's choice may put at risk many "down-ballot" seats in the House of Representatives. Which leads to the obvious question: if their fears are true, could it mean Democrats have a much better chance at taking the House back in the upcoming elections? To put it another way, will we see "Speaker Nancy Pelosi" again next year?

Admittedly, it'll be tough to accurately say, even after the election returns are in. It's impossible to tease from the exit polling data such nuances, even when you know the results of the election. So the entire matter is one for nothing but speculation, and will be even after the dust settles in November.

But that doesn't mean some Republicans are getting worried. One of the few who spoke on the record (to Politico) was Mark McKinnon, a former senior advisor to President George W. Bush, who had this to say about the selection of Ryan:

I think it’s a very bold choice. And an exciting and interesting pick. It’s going to elevate the campaign into a debate over big ideas. It means Romney-Ryan can run on principles and provide some real direction and vision for the Republican Party. And probably lose. Maybe big.

That's not exactly a vote of confidence. Those who weren't bold enough to go on record had similar things to say: Ryan may hurt down-ballot Republican chances, mostly due to his Medicare plan. Republicans, amusingly enough, have spent roughly the last two years whining about how Democrats run "Mediscare" ads to frighten seniors away from voting Republican, but this time around it was the Romney/Ryan camp who rolled out the first "Mediscare" ad of the 2012 campaign season. Meaning the campaign itself is worried about how the subject is going to play in the election.

The Obama campaign seems to have been caught a little flat-footed on the subject. Ryan was (unofficially) announced as Romney's pick last Friday night, and here it is Wednesday and they still haven't managed to get a Medicare ad of their own out yet -- even after Romney's "across the bow" first shot. This is the biggest weakness for Ryan, so you'd think by now the Obama folks would be hitting it with a sledgehammer.

When the ads start flying from both directions, they are going to have a rather large "coattails" effect on a lot of Democratic candidates for the House, though. Kathy Hochul proved it can be a winning issue for Democrats running for the House, and there should be plenty of Democratic candidates out there willing to put this theory to the test.

What will it all mean in the end is anybody's guess. Taking back control of the House is not going to be any sort of walk in the park for Democrats this year. Currently (at least according to Wikipedia), the House has 190 Democrats and 241 Republicans, with four vacancies. Although this is a gap of 51 members, it's not quite so big when you consider how many seats would need to flip. Democrats would need to increase their numbers by 28 seats, in some combination of winning Republican-held seats and picking up vacant seats, to get to the magic number of 218.

Nancy Pelosi, last year, seemed optimistic that Democrats would have a good chance to regain control of the chamber. Since then, Democrats have gotten noticeably more pessimistic. In historic terms, picking up that many seats in the House qualifies as a "landslide" or "sweep" election. A flip of 28 seats is easier to achieve than 51 seats, but it's still a whopping number of victories in a single election cycle in modern times.

But it's hard to deny that the selection of Paul Ryan certainly will make this task a lot easier. House races can be pretty picayune in their focus, and this gives Democratic challengers a clear issue to make the centerpiece of their fight. If Democrats jump on this issue with both feet, it would certainly widen the field of possible seats to pick up in the House. Granted, they'd still have to pretty much run the table this November to put Pelosi back in command, but achieving this might have just gotten a lot easier.

So far, Democrats haven't been wildly optimistic about their chances to retake the House, but the Republicans sure seem to be worried about it. One unnamed GOP strategist quoted in the Politico article summed the opportunity Democrats have now been handed nicely (speaking of the Romney campaign):

This could be the defining moment of the campaign. If they win the battle to define Medicare, then I believe Romney wins the presidency. If they lose it, then they lose big in the fall.

This could indeed be the key. Romney is already fighting hard to define the issue on his terms -- which mostly consists of hoping to "muddy the waters" with the voters so much that they don't believe what either side says on the issue. The Obama team needs to counter this strategy, and they need to do so as fast as possible. Stump speaking is fine and good, but the Obama team has to release a national ad on the subject, and soon.

Whoever wins this messaging battle could win the election -- and could also influence a whole lot of down-ballot races. Whether it will be enough to win the House back for the Democrats remains to be seen, but it's certainly the best chance that has come down the pike so far this year.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

87 Comments on “Could Ryan's Choice Put The House In Play?”

  1. [1] 
    michty6 wrote:

    "this time around it was the Romney/Ryan camp who rolled out the first "Mediscare" ad of the 2012 campaign season... hoping to "muddy the waters" with the voters so much that they don't believe what either side says on the issue

    Yes, usual Romney tactic: when you know your opponent is going to raise legitimate concerns on an issue put out a completely false attack ad before him. That neutralizes the future potential attack, same old nonsense...

    Whether it will be enough to win the House back for the Democrats remains to be seen

    Agree, far too early to make any reasonable calls on this. The best hope for Democrats is that the electorate sends a strong message to the Republicans and that they actually listen - winning the House back won't matter if Republicans continue to use the filibuster at historic rates in the Senate...

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It will be very interesting to see how the rest of the campaign plays out.

    I'm just wondering if enough Americans will ever conclude that divided government has become the equivalent of dysfunctional government and that its going to be very tough to move the country forward for a Democratic president who does not have a healthy majority in the House and an effective (read: filibuster-proof) majority in the Senate.

  3. [3] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    CW: Nancy Pelosi, last year, seemed optimistic that Democrats would have a good chance to regain control of the chamber. Since then, Democrats have gotten noticeably more pessimistic. In historic terms, picking up that many seats in the House qualifies as a "landslide" or "sweep" election. A flip of 28 seats is easier to achieve than 51 seats, but it's still a whopping number of victories in a single election cycle in modern times.

    But it's hard to deny that the selection of Paul Ryan certainly will make this task a lot easier.

    This is all provided Dems can successfully turn out their base. Interesting article:

    Obama’s silent, non-voting majority
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/15/obamas-silent-majority/?tid=pm_politics_pop

  4. [4] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Obama’s silent, non-voting majority
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/15/obamas-silent-majority/?tid=pm_politics_pop

    This is what happens when people completely lose faith in their political system...

  5. [5] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    ...or their president.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    To put it another way, will we see "Speaker Nancy Pelosi" again next year?

    If we do, it will truly signify the beginning of the END OF DAYS...

    This is the biggest weakness for Ryan, so you'd think by now the Obama folks would be hitting it with a sledgehammer.

    Team Obama is too busy calling Romney a felon and a murderer to actually put out an ad that at least has a PASSING association with the facts...

    mitchy,

    Yes, usual Romney tactic: when you know your opponent is going to raise legitimate concerns on an issue put out a completely false attack ad before him. That neutralizes the future potential attack, same old nonsense...

    This is my beef with you, mitchy. Actually with many here..

    It's NOT just a Romney tactic. It's also an Obama tactic...

    Obama's ads and facts are not even on the same planet..

    ...or their president.

    Once again, CB nails the landing..

    That's what ya'all just don't get. Or, more accurately, you just don't WANT to get...

    Americans simply DON'T like Obama's policies... Americans don't TRUST Obama and the Democrats on the economy anymore..

    The majority of Americans are thinking the EXACT same thing I am thinking..

    "Well, we gave Democrats a chance and they royally screwed the pooch."

    All the signs are there. But no one here will acknowledge them..

    Could Obama's downward spiral be arrested? Sure, a lot can happen in 80 days...

    But, to be honest, I don't think anything less than First Contact will give Democrats any hope that they actually might have a chance...

    It's going to be 2010 on steroids and I'll bet you a million quatloos that, when the dust settles and the slaughter/shellacking is complete, Democrats will STILL be saying:

    "If only we had phrased our message better"

    THIS is exactly why Democrats will lose... Because they simply CAN'T admit that the American people don't have a problem with the Democrats' messaging abilities...

    Americans have a problem with the message itself...

    The evidence of this is all around. JUST as it was in 2010...

    "Those who fail to remember the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
    -Sir Winston Churchill

    Michale.....

  7. [7] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Chris/Michale

    ...or their president..
    Once again, CB nails the landing..
    That's what ya'all just don't get. Or, more accurately, you just don't WANT to get...

    Lol once again I will resort to facts:
    Congress approval rating = around 14% average
    Obama approval rating = around 48% average

    I'll stick with my view that the political system (Congress) being to blame, given the record all-time-ever-low approval ratings...

    Michale
    It's NOT just a Romney tactic. It's also an Obama tactic...
    Obama's ads and facts are not even on the same planet..

    There is a difference between the campaigns pushing the boundary in an advert in an attempt to tie something negative to an opponent (both parties do this) and complete blatant 100% false lies (like Obama is cutting $700n from Medicare)...

  8. [8] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Congress approval rating = around 14% average

    That includes consressional Democrats, michty. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

  9. [9] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Americans simply DON'T like Obama's policies... Americans don't TRUST Obama and the Democrats on the economy anymore..

    Quite true, when it comes to O and the economy, deficit and jobs creation. In the latest Gallup poll, O's favorabilities are in the 30's on all three issues. On the economy, specifically, it's 36% approve, 60% disapprove.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll stick with my view that the political system (Congress) being to blame, given the record all-time-ever-low approval ratings...

    Of course you are welcome to your opinion...

    But here in the States, Obama doesn't get a pass just because the people hate Congress more...

    Do you HONESTLY believe that the electorate that swept Obama into power (of which I include myself) is not disappointed in Obama's lackadaisical performance as POTUS???

    and complete blatant 100% false lies (like Obama is cutting $700n from Medicare)...

    or like Romney is a felon or Romney murdered a woman...

    Spin it all you like, mitchy.. But I don't think you will find ANYONE who doesn't agree that Obama's ads and statements have crossed a line that, to date, has never been crossed..

    "putting people in chains"???

    SERIOUSLY!!!???

    Michale....

  11. [11] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Do you HONESTLY believe that the electorate that swept Obama into power (of which I include myself) is not disappointed in Obama's lackadaisical performance as POTUS?

    No but people are smart enough to recognise:
    1. The context in which he was elected
    2. The problems he inherited
    3. The complete blockage of his policies to fix these - in the worst ever Congress ever seen in the history of the USA...

    But I don't think you will find ANYONE who doesn't agree that Obama's ads and statements have crossed a line that, to date, has never been crossed..

    Like I said there is a difference between rhetoric and pushing the boundaries (both candidates do this) and a complete outright 100% factually incorrect lie. Romney might as well just run an ad saying 'Obama punches elderly people in the face', it would as true a statement as 'Obama is cutting Medicare' or 'Obama wants to hand out welfare checks'...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    No but people are smart enough to recognise:
    1. The context in which he was elected
    2. The problems he inherited
    3. The complete blockage of his policies to fix these - in the worst ever Congress ever seen in the history of the USA...

    Bull...

    1. Obama sure didn't mention "context" when he was campaigning..

    2. Oh gods, is the Left STILL beating that poor dead horse... Give the poor equine a break... Obama's been president for almost 4 years now... He should man up and admit what practically every non-kool-aide drinking person already knows..
    Obama frak'ed it up...

    3. Once again, passing the buck. Evading responsibility... It's EVERYONE's fault EXCEPT Obama's... Gods, it makes one want to puke...

    Romney might as well just run an ad saying 'Obama punches elderly people in the face', it would as true a statement as 'Obama is cutting Medicare' or 'Obama wants to hand out welfare checks'...

    You mean like "Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10 years" or showing Ryan pushing an old lady in a wheel chair off a cliff??

    Give it up, mitchy... The facts are clear.. Obama's over the top rhetoric and out and out lies are the ads that is pushing Americans away from Team Obama... It's also a great indicator of exactly how desperate Team Obama has become...

    And now that polls show young voters flocking to Romney and away from Obama..????

    Obama is only going to get more and more desperate...

    I noticed you ignored the putting people in chains comment.. Good call.. It is simply indefensible...

    This is the reality, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not..

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    We can continue this debate but we'll be going in the wrong direction. Example:

    Once again, passing the buck. Evading responsibility... It's EVERYONE's fault EXCEPT Obama's

    I think Obama made some mistakes by compromising with Republicans. Like extending the Bush tax cuts was a horrendous mistake, thankfully he has learned from this.

    But this is moot because I can criticise him for such mistakes - YOU can't. Because YOU believe extending tax cuts is correct! And the guy running against him now wants to lower the tax cuts FURTHER and extend them PERMANENTLY. So if this was so bad and so big a fail for Obama why do you want to continue with it? This is the problem for you and people on the right. I can criticize Obama for such policies, you can't because you believe this was the correct policy!

    You mean like "Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10 years" or showing Ryan pushing an old lady in a wheel chair off a cliff??

    Where is this wheel chair cliff advert? I want to see this, it sounds funny. I also don't remember an Obama campaign advert stating Romney hadn't paid taxes in 10 years can you point me to that one as well?

    And now that polls show young voters flocking to Romney and away from Obama..?

    Really? I hadn't seen these polls. Can you provide me these too?

    I noticed you ignored the putting people in chains comment.. Good call.. It is simply indefensible...

    It was a little over the top. But he was responding to the same metaphor Romney used saying he wanted to 'unchain Wall St'...

    It still isn't the same as making a complete 100% not-a-shred-of-truth lie in a campaign ad shown nationwide on TV.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    The nice thing about this debate/argument is that, in a little over 80 days, we'll know who was right and who was wrong.. :D

    Michale.....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where is this wheel chair cliff advert? I want to see this, it sounds funny.

    Of course it sounds funny. Because it's against a Republican...

    I also don't remember an Obama campaign advert stating Romney hadn't paid taxes in 10 years can you point me to that one as well?

    Harry Reid... On orders from the White House. If you can drag statements from all the Right and attribute them to Camp Romney, then I can drag statements from all the Left and attribute them to Team Obama..

    Really? I hadn't seen these polls. Can you provide me these too?

    Are you sensing a pattern here??

    You don't see ANYTHING that is anti-Obama...

    Strange how that is, eh?? :D

    It was a little over the top. But he was responding to the same metaphor Romney used saying he wanted to 'unchain Wall St'...

    Bullcrap.. The context and setting was TOTALLY different... And plus we're talking about BIDEN, so you can't claim so sort of intelligent association...

    No, Biden was talking to a group practically evenly split amongst black and white and it was an obvious reference to racism..

    Which is actually ironic because, almost within the span of my lifetime, the Democrats were the racists of the country...

    It still isn't the same as making a complete 100% not-a-shred-of-truth lie in a campaign ad shown nationwide on TV.

    You mean, like Obama's claim that Romney is a felon and that he murdered some woman???

    Ads like that???

    We could always talk about OPSEC's latest video ad... :D

    "I Don't Think Anyone Would Suggest I've Tried To Divide The Country
    -President Barack Obama

    The complete and utter clueless-ness of our President never ceases to amaze and astound me...

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Of course it sounds funny. Because it's against a Republican...

    Hahaha I found it! Ridiculous but funny. I thought it would be a cartoon!

    If you can drag statements from all the Right and attribute them to Camp Romney

    Nope you are completely missing the point.

    What we are talking about is Mr Romney himself - not a 3rd party or super-pac or his VP or a Republican or anyone else - in a video endorsed by Mr Romney, released by the campaign of Mr Romney making a clear and blatant 100% lie.

    There is a reason why candidates say 'I'm XYZ and I endorse this message' - because the messages they endorse are held up to a much higher standard. This isn't third party or super-pac nonsense ads - these are supposed to be to a higher standard. And in this case Romney's standard is: a complete, blatant, 100% false lie (twice in the last week).

    Are you sensing a pattern here??
    You don't see ANYTHING that is anti-Obama...

    I read many polls and analysis every-day. So please provide me with the poll as I am genuinely interested. And yes I see something anti-Obama everyday when I look in the mirror!

    You mean, like Obama's claim that Romney is a felon and that he murdered some woman???

    Sorry, once more if you're going to make stuff up post the links. If have not seen a Obama campaign advert that says such things. If you show me an advert endorsed by Mr Obama with complete blatant lies in it then you've got yourself an argument...

  17. [17] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Uh-oh...

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/today-day_650058.html

    Does anyone think there's any real chance that O may dump Biden and replace him with Hillary? I highly doubt it, but ol' Joe's been gaffing it up on the stump. And that "in chains" statement took a day away from O getting his message out.

  18. [18] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Chris62

    From your perspective, as someone who wants to see him lose (I believe), would you rather he picked Biden or Clinton?

  19. [19] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Biden. I think Clinton would bring a tremendous boost to the O ticket. That's why I'm wondering if anyone thinks it'll happen. O still has around 20 days to make the switch.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I gotta agree with CB...

    An Obama/Clinton ticket scares the holy hell out of me...

    Michale.....

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    An Obama/Clinton ticket scares the holy hell out of me...

    On the other hand, a switch so late in the game would throw the Left in complete disarray and give the GOP a field day.. The ads would nearly write themselves...

    So, it could really go either way...

    I don't see Hillary doing it, though.. She has absolutely NOTHING to gain and everything to lose by hitching onto Obama's broken-wheeled wagon...

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Axelrod Won't Rule Out Biden Being Dropped, Tells Joke Instead
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/axelrod-wont-rule-out-biden-being-dropped-tells-joke-instead_650073.html

    I think Old Joe is about to be handed walking papers....

    Michale.....

  23. [23] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol I've never heard of the weekly standard. Your opinions make so much more sense now! I've never seen so many articles about how 'bad' fact-checkers are in my life!

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-radford-business-owner-declines-joe-bidens-request-to-stop-in-store-20120815,0,4370357.story

    Like I said...

    Obama's "you didn't build that" is going to be the death of Obama's campaign...

    Michale.....

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol I've never heard of the weekly standard.

    Which simply re-enforces the theory that you are blind to anything that is anti-Obama... :D

    Your opinions make so much more sense now!

    Du auch.... :D

    Michale.....

  26. [26] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Lol I've never heard of the weekly standard. Your opinions make so much more sense now!

    Like I said, I read tons of newspapers, news magazines and blogs, on a daily basis, from both the Right and the Left. Maybe you should try it. Rightie articles aren't gonna change your opinons or make your head explode. The worst that can happen is you get to understand Rightie views a bit better.

  27. [27] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I think Old Joe is about to be handed walking papers....

    LOL. Y'know, O is very loyal to his people. So even if Biden were making 10 gaffes a day, I'm not sure O would cut him loose. But, then again, O would like to win this reelection. And if ol' Joe is serving as a distraction or hinderance, O might well drop him. It's just interesting that Hillary's in town, doing meetings with O at the same time gaffe-prone Joe is scheduled for a sit-down. And now we have Axelrod dodging the question. Interesting.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe you should try it. Rightie articles aren't gonna change your opinons or make your head explode. The worst that can happen is you get to understand Rightie views a bit better.

    I understand a little better where Mitchy is coming from and why he believes that Obama walks on water, that Obama's only fault is being so gosh-darned naive when dealing with those evil, baby eating, black plague causing, devil worshiping, foul smelling Republicans....

    :D

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Hahahaha! We like to kill seniors, too. Deer, elk, moose, and seniors.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    LOL. Y'know, O is very loyal to his people.

    Sorry, CB... I have to disagree with you on this..

    Obama is only loyal to Obama..

    But here's the conundrum that Obama is facing..

    On the one hand, Joe's mouth is really going to cause some headaches for Team Obama. Biden is like that crazy old uncle that one dreads introducing to a new girlfriend/boyfriend...

    On the other hand, such a drastic change in midstream is bound to cause some major ripples, even tidal waves for Team Obama. Camp Romney is orgasmic over Team Obama replacing the Left Tackle at the end of the 3rd quarter...

    So, Obama has to weigh the options. What's going to cause more hurt...

    Joe's mouth...

    Or

    Looking even MORE utterly incompetent (if that's possible) than is already apparent...

    It's a tough call...

    Personally, I think that Obama/Hillary could overcome the negatives and really make the election a horse race...

    Obama/Hillary would energize the Left to heights not even seen in 2008....

    THAT scares the scheisse out of me!!

    But I think Obama will stick with Joe... But not by choice... I think Hillary has told/will tell Obama to stick his offer where the sun don't shine...

    That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!! :D

    Michale....

  31. [31] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    So, Obama has to weigh the options. What's going to cause more hurt...

    Joe's mouth...

    Or

    Looking even MORE utterly incompetent (if that's possible) than is already apparent...

    It's a tough call...

    Personally, I think that Obama/Hillary could overcome the negatives and really make the election a horse race...

    Obama/Hillary would energize the Left to heights not even seen in 2008....

    Yeah, I agree, Michale. If crazy Uncle Joe is a liability, and Hillary would get people off their couches on election day (she had nearly as much support as Obama, in the primaries), it seems like an easy call, to me. But you never know, with O. He's not the best strategist I've ever seen in my life. So who knows what the guy would do.

    But, by the same token, who knows if Hillary would even be interested? I don't know why she would be. For years of veep work? And if she wants to make a run in 2016, it would be better to cut her ties to O now, to avoid any possible Obama bathtub ring.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, by the same token, who knows if Hillary would even be interested? I don't know why she would be. For years of veep work? And if she wants to make a run in 2016, it would be better to cut her ties to O now, to avoid any possible Obama bathtub ring.

    I doubt that Hillary (or Bill for that matter) have any inclination to throw Obama a life preserver.. They would be more inclined to throw him a boat anchor... :D

    Which, by not running with Obama, that is EXACTLY what they are throwing him.. :D

    Michale.....

  33. [33] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Clang, clang, clang!!! Aoogah, aoogah!!! Drudge sirens or whatever.

    Congratulations, Michale, you've reached your pinnacle for outrageous comments. I'm going to show it in its entirety; where you wrote it I'm not sure many people would catch it.

    "[107]
    Michale wrote:

    Mitchy,

    Your entire premise is based on one faulty assumption.

    Being gay is a lifestyle choice... If a person doesn't want all the hassles and problems of that lifestyle then the solution is simple..

    Don't be a part of that lifestyle....

    I am somewhat of an authority on the inherent problems of lifestyle choices that are counter to the public morality... My lovely wife and I never demanded equality based on our lifestyle choice...

    To do so would be ludicrous...

    I know, I know.. You are going to claim that gay people are born that way..

    Simply another case of policy-based evidence making...

    Funny how many of the Left's agenda consists of policy based evidence making.. :D

    Once you get past the bullshit being gay is akin to being black or hispanic or oriental, you can see the illogic of the Left's position vis a vis the so-called equality issue..

    But, I have to say, wouldn't it be kewl if we could evade personal responsibility by simply claiming we were "born that way"!! What a world that would be...

    "There would be no consequences! We could do whatever we want!!!"
    -Gus, GROUNDHOG DAY

    Michale...."

    All I can say is WOW, just wow...we disagree on everything political, but every so often you say something so unbelievable steam comes out of my ears. PLEASE tell me this was you being cleverly sarcastic or facetious; I'm actually kind of fond of you. If you truly believe this, then every future word from you goes into my mental trash can. (Sadly, most of them already do; but you do come up with a few keepers).

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uh... Kevin....

    I think you might have crossed threads somewhere.. :D

    No worries.. I have don it myself once or twice.. it's embarrassing as hell.. :D

    But mosey on over to that thread and I'll be happy to answer.. :D

    Michale....

  35. [35] 
    Kevin wrote:

    No, Michale. I deliberately quoted it here since post# 107 from a few days ago might have been missed by most of the regulars. Simple question - do you believe what you said or is it just a case of a bad (horrific) joke gone wrong?

  36. [36] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Read comment #108 from 2 days ago. Crushed. Shall now gloss over future comments and put in same mental place as other resident crazy's blurts.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    MSNBC’s Touré: Romney Engaging In The ‘Niggerization’ Of Obama
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-toure-to-panel-romney-engaging-in-the-niggerization-of-obama/

    WOW....

    Just.... WOW

    I am actually at a loss for words...

    Hopefully, this is not a trend....

    Michale.....

  38. [38] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    yikes. that seemed pretty unambiguous to me. unfortunate. there's no legitimate debate that one's sexual preference is not a choice. my understanding of the process is that it's part nature and part nurture, but once it develops it's pretty much permanently etched in the brain. how one acts on one's preferences may be a personal choice, but the preference itself is not.

    unless one's preference involves hurting people or sex with something other than adult humans, virtually all of the civilized world frowns upon government intrusion into the expression of one's attraction, whether by sex, marriage, child-rearing or whatever else. a vocal minority in the US do think otherwise, but that minority is shrinking and will soon be nearly irrelevant.

    ~joshua

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, since we want to change the subject of this discussion, who am I to argue.. :D

    there's no legitimate debate that one's sexual preference is not a choice.

    No "legitimate debate" within the Leftist agenda sphere, you mean..

    Just like there is no "legitimate debate" that global warming will kill us all in 20 years.. Within the Leftist agenda sphere, that is......

    It's simply another example of policy based evidence making...

    Point to me ANY real scientific evidence that proves unequivocally that being gay is something people are born with..

    That's utter crap..

    It's like religious fanatics saying that people have a god given destiny.. That there is NOTHING even remotely resembling free will.

    Moose poop!! I say again.. MOOSE POOP!!!

    Like I said.. It's the religious fanatics version of "The Devil made me do it"

    Policy based evidence making...

    Being gay CAN'T be a choice because that would mean that the entire gay activist agenda is utterly bollixed...

    So, let's find some Left Wing hack psuedo-elitist-intellectuals who will claim, with absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE whatsoever, that people are born gay...

    Then they can package it, spin it, market it and viola'.. They gay agenda is safe...

    I have personal experience with gay people.. Family members who are gay.. People who USED to be gay.. People who were gay and then they weren't and then they were again.. People who only seem to be gay when it suits their needs of the moment...

    Saying people are born gay is like saying people are born evil.. That there is absolutely NO CHOICE in the matter...

    How is that any different than the religious fanatics who claim it's "all god's will??"

    Answer? It isn't different at all...

    Michale.....

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:
  41. [41] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I read that a little earlier today. What do you make of the Secret Service's comment, i.e., their thank you? LOL

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    michale,

    i simply can't conceive of any rational defense of your view, other than perhaps an ambiguity between the concepts of sexuality as attraction, behavior and identity. there is extensive research on sexuality from a wide range of sources, peer-reviewed journals, the american psychological association and various other sources. there have been twin studies, survey data, animal research, volumes upon volumes of which all lead to the same essential range of conclusions; the fluidity of sexual preference is limited by biology, including same-sex preference. call it hubris if you must, but i feel i'm better qualified than you are to make that judgment.

  43. [43] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    If there is so much *factual* evidence that proves beyond any doubt, surely it would be easy to cite some...

    But, I have to warn you that I will be very skeptical..

    As I said, my own personal experiences with, literally, hundreds of people who are of the gay lifestyle shows a completely different story...

    I'll also ask again.

    How is the concept of being "born that way" any different than the religious fanatic's view that "the devil made me do it"??

    http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=1335

    Go ahead.. Tell me that "the science is settled" and I will taunt you a second time! :D

    Michale.....

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    "At clinical conferences one often hears discussants commenting that 'homosexuality is genetic' and, therefore, that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true. These ideas were sometimes put forth in the 1980s in a debate that has long since ended...

    Homosexual orientation results from interaction of many factors, including genetic influences in varying degrees across individuals... The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology. "

    Sexual orientation of any type - homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual - is best conceptualized as part of the psychology of men or the psychology of women... "
    -Richard C. Friedman, MD, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry in the Weill Medical College at Cornell University, wrote the following statement in his book Sexual Orientation and Pschoanalysis

    "The stages of psycho-social development toward adult heterosexuality are clearly demarcated, known and understood by developmental psychologists, and are so obviously learned that heterosexuality is clearly not genetically mandated. Surveys of adult homosexuals show conspicuous deficits in several of these developmental stages - showing that homosexuality is cultural and environmental rather than genetic."
    -Neil E. Whitehead, PhD, scientific research consultant, wrote the following information in his book My Genes Made Me Do It!

    "The capacity to adapt homosexually is, in a sense, a tribute to man's biosocial resources in the face of thwarted heterosexual goal­ achievement. Sexual gratification is not renounced; instead, fears and inhibitions associated with heterosexuality are circumvented and sexual responsivity with pleasure and excitement to a member of the same sex develops as a pathologic alternative."
    Irving Bieber, MD, medical psychoanalyst and former faculty of New York Medical College, wrote the following information in his book Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study

    "Although the popular perception of homosexuality has been that, at least in men, homosexuality is caused by biological factors, the most current and best scientific evidence appears to show that at most homosexuality is only influenced by biology in a predisposing way. The research efforts which have attempted to determine a biological cause for homosexual attraction have failed."
    -Stony Olsen, JD, Research Assistant at the University of Utah School of Medicine, wrote the following information in his article titled "Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable?"

    For obvious reasons, I couldn't bring myself to post the research from religious organizations..

    But I could post quote after quote after quote from respected scientists and peer-reviewed papers..

    Yea I know, I know. You can post quote after quote from respected scientists and peer-reviewed papers to support YOUR claim..

    So, like with Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) since the science is in dispute, we have to look at other evidence.

    In THIS case, I draw on my own personal experiences of people who WERE gay then they were not. People who became gay late in life. People who switch back and forth between gay and straight as often as normal people change their underwear (once a week, whether I need to to or not! :D)..

    Based on THAT evidence, it's clear to me that being gay is a choice and not genetically induced..

    Michale.....

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB

    I read that a little earlier today. What do you make of the Secret Service's comment, i.e., their thank you? LOL

    Yea, ya gotta admire the class of the Secret Service. They have gotten such bad press lately, it's nice to see something good about them..

    Not only the Secret Service, but the entire community...

    Radford bakery that turned Biden away sells out of 'freedom cookies'
    The viral reaction to Chris the Baker shows the continuing resonance of "You didn't build that" in the presidential campaign.

    http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/312876

    I am guessing that Obama will likely not get many votes from Roanoke... :D

    But ya gotta admit, I was dead on ballz accurate when I called it that Obama's "you didn't build that {business}" was going to resonate long after the press coverage of the incident died down.

    That will likely become to turning point of the campaign when American voters realized that President Obama just doesn't get it, doesn't understand how America is and how Americans think.

    Remember, you read it here first! :D

    Michale.....

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as Biden's racial/fearmongering gaffe, let's hear from a respected Democrat who also happens to be black..

    America's first black governor tells Joe Biden: 'Slavery is nothing to joke about.’
    http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/08/americas-first-black-governor-tells-joe-biden-slavery-is-nothing-to-joke-about.html

    Michale.....

  48. [48] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    Yea, I read that... Up on #37, I was so astounded at the blatant racism, I was speechless...

    Fortunately it's a condition that soon passed.. :D

    But, my gods.. I honestly can't believe the desperation of Team Obama...

    I know they would never admit it, but I am betting every Weigantian is cringing at that article and wondering, like we are, "Have Democrats lost their collective marbles!!!!"

    Michale.....

  50. [50] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I'm waiting to see what MSNBC has to say about that "niggerization" statement. If that word had been uttered on Fox, the Left would be in full meltdown mode right now.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm waiting to see what MSNBC has to say about that "niggerization" statement. If that word had been uttered on Fox, the Left would be in full meltdown mode right now.

    This is unequivocally and undeniably dead on ballz accurate...

    It's that same double standard that royally pisses me off..

    Even more so because the standard answer around is, "Left Wing media bias?? *WHAT* Left Wing media bias!!"

    Grrrrrr.. It's enough to piss the pope off!

    Michale.....

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) - Barack Obama's re-election campaign kept up pressure against Republican rival Mitt Romney on two fronts Friday, launching a new ad defending the president's record on Medicare while challenging Romney to release at least five years of tax returns.
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120817/DA0N2QS04.html

    Quid pro quo, Mr President..

    You release five years of school records and Romney will release five years of tax returns...

    Disclosure is disclosure... Transparency is transparency..

    Michale....

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well isn't THIS the irony of ironies!!! :D

    Romney’s Bain saved site of Obamas’ first kiss
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/16/romneys-bain-saved-site-of-obamas-first-kiss/

    There would have been no Michelle Obama if not for the actions of Romney and Bain..

    Barack owes his wedded bliss to Romney!!!

    You seriously cannot make this stuff up!!! :D

    Michale.....

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even more so because the standard answer around is, "Left Wing media bias?? *WHAT* Left Wing media bias!!"

    Speaking of Left Wing media bias.

    How come the MSM isn't reporting in depth about the Left Wing wacko who shot up a Conservative Lobbying Office??

    If it had been a Tea Party psycho and a Planned Parenthood office, the MSM would have been into it for DAYS, even WEEKS..

    But barely even a mention..

    How ANYONE can say with a straight face that the MSM is not biased Left is a mystery to me..

    Michale.....

  55. [55] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    michale,

    you're just digging your hole deeper and deeper on this one. i'm not going to attempt to summarize fifty years of research for you in any field of science or social science, be it human sexuality or climate change. when science is involved, there are going to be opinions that don't line up neatly. however, varying degrees of ambiguity is not the same thing as "nobody knows." not all points of view are equally accurate or honest. in both cases, you're exaggerating the opposing point of view to its absolute extreme, then attempting to make light of your own exaggeration.

    certainly, there's valid debate about the extent to which various human influences have been involved in large percentages of the planet's ice melting. but it's a directly observable phenomenon; you can't claim that the ice isn't melting, because it is. the surface temperature isn't rising much because at the moment there's still some ice left. try this yourself sometime with a glass of water. however, there's a limited supply of ice on the planet.

    likewise, there's a valid debate about what percentage of human sexual behavior is determined by genetics and prenatal hormones, but not that it's somehow irrelevant. there's always a component of choice in human behavior; no developmental psychologist would argue otherwise. however, one's preference itself cannot be rationally called a "choice" - you can choose to eat only vanilla ice cream or try strawberry on occasion, but that won't change the fact that you prefer chocolate. whether you choose to identify yourself as a "chocolate-lover" or join the chocolate eating community is a different issue. taste of any sort is partly genetic, partly learned, but not subject to "choice," and certainly not a valid reason to deny people with other tastes the same kind of bowl in which to eat.

    ~joshua

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    certainly, there's valid debate about the extent to which various human influences have been involved in large percentages of the planet's ice melting. but it's a directly observable phenomenon; you can't claim that the ice isn't melting, because it is. the surface temperature isn't rising much because at the moment there's still some ice left. try this yourself sometime with a glass of water. however, there's a limited supply of ice on the planet.

    Would it interest you to know that, according to scientists, the global temperature has been DECREASING for the last 2000 years??

    Probably not, because it doesn't fit the agenda...

    Yes, ice is melting in some parts of the planet. It's also growing in other parts of the planet..

    Do I really have to list ALL the bonehead predictions made by the fear mongering alarmists/activists that have turned out to be totally bogus??

    Can YOU list me ONE... JUST ONE... prediction made by the global warming activists that have come true??

    No, you can't because not ONE single prediction made by the global warming alarmists has come true.

    Let me say that for the cheap seats.. NOT ONE SINGLE PREDICTION has come true.

    Global Warming alarmism is like religion. You either have faith or you don't...

    I really don't want to get into this debate because I don't like arguing religion with the converted... So let's table that discussion as it will go no where pleasant..

    As to your ice cream analogy, let's take that to the next logical step..

    Say that you CHOOSE to eat chocolate, but you know that you break out in hives if you do eat it..

    So, is it logical that you should hold OTHERs responsible for YOUR choice???

    I have listed the SCIENCE that indicates people are NOT born gay... I can list HUNDREDs if not THOUSANDS more scientific quotes and papers and facts that indicate being gay is not genetic...

    Do you have ANY scientific evidence that pinpoints the "gay gene"??

    No..

    So, basically your entire argument consists of "God will assume to exist in absence of evidence to the contrary".

    That's it. That's your entire argument..

    I respect your reasoning but, as I said, not only is there HUGE amounts of scientific data that indicate being gay is a choice and not genetic, I have my own personal experiences that span 35 years to back up the scientific evidence..

    So, unless you have scientific evidence that points to the "gay gene", then I'll have to go with the facts...

    Just curious though. Scientists a while back discovered that being promiscuous is also genetic..

    What's your take on that??? What's your take on the idea that sluts aren't made, that they're born that way.. :D

    I tell you, it would allow me to mitigate and excuse some pretty raunchy behavior!!! :D

    Michale....

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    the surface temperature isn't rising much because at the moment there's still some ice left. try this yourself sometime with a glass of water. however, there's a limited supply of ice on the planet.

    You DO know that, when ice melts in a glass of water, the level of the water remains constant, right???

    Michale....

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I have listed the SCIENCE that indicates people are NOT born gay...

    what you have listed isn't science, it's psychoanalysis, essentially the redheaded stepchild of the psychological community. here's some actual science:

    http://borngay.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000006

  59. [59] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Would it interest you to know that, according to scientists, the global temperature has been DECREASING for the last 2000 years??

    Probably not, because it doesn't fit the agenda...

    it doesn't interest me because it's a non-specific statistic out of context. does "global temperature" mean the surface air temperature, water temperature, core temperature, overall atmospheric temperature? 2000 years is also a pointless range because the industrial revolution and its associated change in atmospheric carbon dioxide began in the mid to late 1800's. around the globe in the past few decades there has been an enormous amount of ice melting and not re-freezing elsewhere. i'm not making claims about the ultimate impact of this, but less ice means more heat, even if the surface air temperature happens to be cooler. overall, the surface of the planet is indeed getting substantially warmer.

    there doesn't seem to be any way to stop this strategy you have of calling attention only to the most radical of claims you oppose, while ignoring those that are more modest and much more factually secure. i believe you are perfectly capable of detaching the science from the propaganda - just because someone like davis guggenheim makes extreme predictions for financial gain doesn't mean the more modest assertions of the underlying science are rendered false by association.

    ~joshua

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    what you have listed isn't science, it's psychoanalysis, essentially the redheaded stepchild of the psychological community. here's some actual science:

    Ahhhhhh

    So we're back to, "My priests are right and YOUR priests are wrong" :D

    Reminds of the definition of insanity in the old Soviet Union. Back then, ANYONE who wanted to leave the USSR *must* be insane.. :D

    Suffice it to say that the science is not conclusive to anyone not pre-disposed to a certain outcome to begin with. IE someone who is objective..

    Therefore, since the science is in dispute, other factors must be considered..

    In my case, personal experience...

    So, unless you can pinpoint the "gay gene" for me, I'll have to go with it's a choice. Of course, if you can also pinpoint the "slut gene" that would be a bonus.. :D

    Michale.....

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    there doesn't seem to be any way to stop this strategy you have of calling attention only to the most radical of claims you oppose, while ignoring those that are more modest and much more factually secure. i believe you are perfectly capable of detaching the science from the propaganda - just because someone like davis guggenheim makes extreme predictions for financial gain doesn't mean the more modest assertions of the underlying science are rendered false by association.

    Do you have any example of these "modest" claims that A> have the computer models to back them up and 2> the predictions made based on these computer models have actually happened??

    I have no problem with the "modest claims"... Matter of fact, I am on record as being totally on board with many of the goals of the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) fanatics...

    My beef is twofold. Well, two and a half fold..

    1. Many, if not all of the proponents of the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory are complete and utter hypocrites with a DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO mentality...
    .5 And they are making BILLIONS with their hypocrisy

    2. The blatant fear-mongering used by the Left INSTEAD of sticking with the "modest" claims that are, inherently, more accurate..

    I don't have a problem with the need for energy independence or combating pollution..

    What I *DO* have a problem with is the vast majority of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) proponents with out of control energy usage, polluting the planet up the wing-wang while scolding the rest of us for OUR paltry contributions and GETTING RICH doing it!

    That's my beef in a nutshell.. :D

    And I should probably stop there...
    Michale....

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it another way, Joshua...

    How would you convince someone who doesn't know anything about science that YOUR science is right and the other science is wrong..

    Answer. You can't... That person would either have to live with the fact that they don't know who is right and who is wrong or they would have to draw on personal experiences...

    Now, I am lucky that I don't have to live with not knowing..

    I can draw on personal experiences...

    And until such time as the science is not in dispute, that's what I am going to have to go by...

    Michale.....

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, ironically enough, we are back to the issue of tolerance...

    To hear Kevin, I am a complete and unequivocal piece of shit :D because I don't believe that being gay is genetic..

    Whatever happened to the Liberals who were tolerant of other people's viewpoints, even if they didn't agree with them???

    THAT's the kind of Liberal that *I* am... Don't seem to have much company though.. :( :D

    Michale.....

  64. [64] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    How would you convince someone who doesn't know anything about science that YOUR science is right and the other science is wrong...

    Answer. You can't...

    incorrect. science functions via observable and measurable evidence; the reason some theories are generally thought of as nearly factual and others are widely considered little more than myth stems from the observed validity of the constructs across a breadth of subjects and methodologies. the reason psychoanalytic theorists tend not to be well thought of among the other schools of psychology has nothing to do with the religious orientation of their conclusions; it has to do with selection bias in their samples, and the tendency to lack any alternate factual foundation in observable and measurable phenomena.

    if you happened to read any of those studies i linked to, you might notice that the conclusions are clearly linked to physically observable phenomena, such as MRI imagery, comparisons between sets of genetically identical twins, physiological conditions that can be observed and measured. whether or not you choose to acknowledge the difference, someone who doesn't know anything can at least recognize the difference between a picture of one brain and a picture of another.

    as to whether there's something fundamentally wrong with you? other than fixating on disproving a nonsensical "genetics-only" straw-man argument, not really. it seems your failure to accept that sexual preference appears to have predictors in genetics (as well as pre-natal hormones, biological, chemical and social influences), stems from a focus on genetics as a sole predictor, rather than a significant part of a much more complex developmental process.

    human behavior is highly fluid and malleable. people do all sorts of stuff, some of which they enjoy and want more of, some of which they dislike and endure. identity is socially constructed. do you think the ancient spartans were "gay?" of course not, in that culture it was just expected that older soldiers would train younger soldiers sexually as well as militarily. some probably enjoyed it more than others, based on the tastes they had naturally or over the course of their growth and development.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are assuming that the person you are trying to convince has the same grasp of the science that you do.

    In my case, it's a wrong assumption.. :D

    All I see is that some scientists say it's genetic and some scientists say it's environmental...

    So, obviously, the science is in dispute..

    Therefore, I only have my own personal experiences to rely on...

    It's really quite simple....

    Michale.....

  66. [66] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i think one of the reasons your point of view is uninformed is that it conflates three different aspects to the way people define themselves sexually, which are interrelated but can exist independently of one another:

    1. what range of activities do you most frequently physically seek out and engage in?

    2. what range of activities do you most frequently think about and enjoy?

    3. what range of relationships define your personal identity within society?

    further divisions within these dimensions exist, such as the desires for romantic companionship vs. the sex act itself. if these dimensions are in conflict, one does not necessarily disprove the other. causal relationships with one dimension may be related directly, inversely or not at all with the others. and that's just defining the construct of sexual orientation, never mind attempting to attribute any particular set of cases to any particular set of causes. if people feel they were "born" different, well birth is one of the critical points of development, before which a lot happens that goes well beyond just genetics.

  67. [67] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, obviously, the science is in dispute..

    all science is "in dispute." if it weren't disputable, it wouldn't be science. that doesn't diminish the value of scientific research or render lay speculation the only valid course.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    if people feel they were "born" different, well birth is one of the critical points of development, before which a lot happens that goes well beyond just genetics.

    "FEELING" like one was born different and actually being born different are two way WAY different things...

    Which is at the crux of this issue..

    People who are part of the gay lifestyle want to BELIEVE they were born different.

    Parents of the people who are part of the gay lifestyle want to BELIEVE that their children were born different...

    It's the non-religious way to say, "The devil made me do it"...

    It absolves everyone of ANY responsibility for the actions in question...

    Who WOULDN'T want to believe that?

    I have noticed you have gone to great lengths not to address the personal experiences with gay people that I have outlined..

    Those would seem to totally demolish your argument that it's genetic..

    Unless, of course, you want to put yourself in the position of judging who is "really" gay and who isn't... :D

    For every person you can point to that is "gay" I can point to TWO people who were "gay" but are not anymore...

    Kinda kills the genetic theory, eh? :D

    all science is "in dispute." if it weren't disputable, it wouldn't be science.

    Perhaps.. But unless you have evidence that puts EITHER theory (Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) or Gay Is Genetic) in the class of the theory of evolution or the "theory" that the Earth is actually round, then they are theories w/o the requisite scientific backing for me to consider them seriously...

    Such evidence MIGHT come down the road. When it does, I'll certainly consider it..

    But in the here and now, with BOTH issues, we barely know enough to even scratch the surface of what we DON'T know....

    Michale.....

    Michale.....

    Michale.....

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    WOW!!

    A triple gainor!! How the hell did THAT happen.. :D

    Michale...

  70. [70] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Joshua:

    it seems your failure to accept that sexual preference appears to have predictors in genetics (as well as pre-natal hormones, biological, chemical and social influences), stems from a focus on genetics as a sole predictor, rather than a significant part of a much more complex developmental process.

    Michale:

    I have noticed you have gone to great lengths not to address the personal experiences with gay people that I have outlined.. Those would seem to totally demolish your argument that it's genetic...

    essentially, you just ignored what i actually wrote and responded as if i hadn't written it. your personal experience reflects a range of reported behavior and identity. it doesn't address the causality of either.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    , you just ignored what i actually wrote and responded as if i hadn't written it.

    Well, I didn't IGNORE it.. I just couldn't understand it. You used too many big words. :D

    Now, if you are trying to say that being gay is not ALL genetics, that there IS an element of choice in the issue, then I might be inclined to accept that..

    But, if this IS the case, then it would seem you are negating the argument for it being genetics..

    To use your ice cream example, if a person has a hormonal condition that makes resisting chocolate ice cream difficult, but still possible and if said person get's hives when he or she eats chocolate ice cream, then said person STILL has the option to choose NOT to eat chocolate ice cream..

    If a person chooses to give into the temptation, then he or she should not be afforded extra consideration, because there STILL was a choice...

    Consider the guy in Miami who was busted for simple battery because he grabbed a woman's arse... His defense?? "It just looked so damn fine!!!"

    Should that person get a pass because he might have been BORN with the inclination to grab fine booty???

    I think we can ALL agree the answer to that would be NO...

    So, if you concede that CHOICE is a factor in a person being gay or not, then it seems you would be making my argument for me....

    Michale....

  72. [72] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "FEELING" like one was born different and actually being born different are two way WAY different things...

    who are you or i to tell someone else how they do or do not feel? if they feel different then they are different. since people who report feeling that way have been medically observed to have different physiological characteristics than those who don't, and similar characteristics to others who do, it provides some concrete validation to their assertion, a corroboration which in contrast psychoanalysis has yet to provide. and for the seventy-ninth time, genetics is NOT the only line of argument to support this likelihood.

    if you look closely at the list of peer-reviewed studies, a minority (such as Spitzer et al) do support the notion that some people can adopt new tastes and identities, as you have observed in your personal life. however, to quote that 2003 study, "Reports of complete change were uncommon." so, some people's preferences are more malleable than others, but very few give up their old tastes completely.

  73. [73] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Now, if you are trying to say that being gay is not ALL genetics, that there IS an element of choice in the issue, then I might be inclined to accept that..

    But, if this IS the case, then it would seem you are negating the argument for it being genetics..

    that's because you're still stuck on this idea that there are only two possible causes. a heck of a lot happens in-between the sperm fertilizing the egg and the adolescent developing fantasies about the girl or boy next door. some happen while the fetus is in the womb, some are the result of an individual's choices, some are coincidence and happenstance. once the outcome is determined, peer-reviewed research suggests that it is nearly impossible to completely reverse, and most of it happens before someone is grown-up enough to figure out the implications of their sexuality.

  74. [74] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    To use your ice cream example, if a person has a hormonal condition that makes resisting chocolate ice cream difficult, but still possible and if said person get's hives when he or she eats chocolate ice cream, then said person STILL has the option to choose NOT to eat chocolate ice cream..

    what if chocolate ice cream gives most people hives, but 10% of the population like and enjoy chocolate ice cream their entire lives without ill effect? why is it incumbent upon the rest of us to "protect" them from something that makes us ill, if it doesn't have the same effect on them? sure, they could eat vanilla even though they hate it. sure, they could become vegan and not eat any ice cream at all. but what would be the point of it?

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    sure, they could become vegan and not eat any ice cream at all. but what would be the point of it?

    Is being Vegan genetics?? Is someone BORN vegetarian??? What about bi-sexual?? Is a person BORN bi-sexual??

    You see how utterly ridiculous it can get?? It would create a world where there is absolutely NO personal responsibility. Since everyone is "born" that way, there simply cannot be any blame assigned...

    who are you or i to tell someone else how they do or do not feel? if they feel different then they are different.

    So, if someone "feels" like they are black, they should be allowed to consider themselves black and have others consider themselves black, with all the rights and privileges that goes along with that???

    Ever see SOUL MAN??? :D

    You don't get to change your genetics just because you feel like it..

    A person is who and what they are... If they can't accept that, then they need to seek counseling to determine WHY they can't accept that.. Or, better yet, just be a man about it and suck it up...

    "We don't talk about our feelings. We just keep them bottled up inside tighter and tighter until they explode in a white hot fury of murderous rage!!"
    -Homer Simpson

    :D

    Anyways, the back and forth won't get us anywhere.

    I won't accept the argument of genetics until science can show me there is a "gay gene"...

    Until that time, the science is in dispute...

    But, beyond that question, I think it's safe to say that someone who doesn't believe that being gay is genetics is not the evil soul-sucking, gut-wrenching, baby-murdering monster that the Left would like to make them out to be..

    Could we at least agree on that?? :D

    Michale.....

  76. [76] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I won't accept the argument of genetics until science can show me there is a "gay gene"...

    how about the science of pre-natal hormones? that at the very least has been proven. and what of the higher likelihood that blood relatives of men who are gay will also be gay, even when brought up in different settings? coincidence? other, more easily measurable traits such as height are also not attributable to a single genetic sequence. are we therefore to conclude that height is not genetic either?

    all science is disputable, that's a silly argument. if something isn't disputable, it isn't science. a better question is whether or not the dispute has a reasonable foundation in fact. there is no reasonable foundation to assert that being gay is not PARTLY determined by genetics. nor is there reasonable foundation to assert that all non-genetic factors in sexual preference are subject to choice.


    Andy Dufresne: How can you be so obtuse?
    Warden Samuel Norton: What? What did you call me?
    Andy Dufresne: Obtuse. Is it deliberate?
    Warden Samuel Norton: Son, you're forgetting yourself.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    As long as we agree that the science is in dispute, I am comfortable with the outcome of this discussion..

    Michale.....

  78. [78] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "in dispute" does NOT mean inconclusive.

    based on the existing evidence, the overwhelming likelihood is that a high percentage (not ALL, but a HIGH percentage) of a person's sexual TASTE is determined in the womb.

    factors in the womb are NOT JUST GENETIC

    i don't usually use all-caps, but you're being super obtuse about this, pardon the expression.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    "in dispute" does NOT mean inconclusive.

    Actually, that's exactly what it means..

    based on the existing evidence, the overwhelming likelihood is that a high percentage (not ALL, but a HIGH percentage) of a person's sexual TASTE is determined in the womb.

    I respect that opinion..

    Other scientists differ and their conclusions are just as compelling. Actually their conclusions are MORE compelling as they confirm my own observations..

    i don't usually use all-caps, but you're being super obtuse about this, pardon the expression.

    If by 'super-obtuse' you mean I am not just going to agree with you because you think I should, then yep.. I am super-obtuse.. :D

    Michale.....

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    Believe me, I understand your frustrations..

    It's how I feel when most everyone here says that Obama is a good president.

    It's like ya just want to beat your head against a brick wall and say, "STOOPID STOOPID STOOPID"

    :D

    Michale.....

  81. [81] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If by 'super-obtuse' you mean I am not just going to agree with you

    no, i mean you are not acknowledging that the dimensions of the argument are different from those you defined, which i capitalized for your benefit:

    FACTORS IN THE WOMB ARE NOT JUST GENETIC.

    the androgens (hormones) in the mom's body during pregnancy have been evidenced to affect the offspring's sexual tastes when they grow up. the same hormones have also shown to influence finger length, which is a likely reason why homosexual men and women tend to have different average ratios of finger length than their heterosexual counterparts. those facts are pretty conclusive.

    http://mynameistya.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/finger-length-ratios-and-your-sexual-orientations/

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    I am not disputing that your science is compelling. It is..

    All I am saying is that the psychological science is ALSO compelling.

    And, because the psychological evidence is backed up by my own experiences spanning over 3 decades, that's the theory that makes the most sense to me..

    Could I be wrong?? Of course..

    Could you be wrong?? Yep...

    But I can HONESTLY say that there is absolutely NOTHING bigoted about my opinion in any way, shape or form..

    I know you would never make that accusation. Just wanted to make sure it was out there.. :D

    Michale.....

  83. [83] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    poet: ...different average ratios of finger length than their heterosexual counterparts. those facts are pretty conclusive.

    http://mynameistya.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/finger-length-ratios-and-your-sexual-orientations/

    I don't know what you're seeing as "facts," poet, but most claims in that article are couched in a qualifier, e.g., "...the chance of..."; "...that tended to be..."; "...it would suggest..."; "likely to be..."; etc. Those qualifiers are there for a reason. If those researchers could have made absolute claims, they would have.

  84. [84] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I don't know what you're seeing as "facts," poet, but most claims in that article are couched in a qualifier

    not the correlation between finger ratio and reported sexual preference. that IS factual. those data have been replicated numerous times with the same results. the __interpretation__ of those facts is qualified, because one can't say for sure that there isn't some other far-flung reason why the correlation exists. what we CAN say is that fetal androgen exposure is currently the only existing hypothesis that explains the data, and that it has been corroborated by peer-reviewed animal research.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    If those researchers could have made absolute claims, they would have

    To be fair, the psychological evidence in support of being gay NOT being genetic is also replete with qualifiers...

    If it were just a case of being confronted with these two opposing theories, I would indeed have a boggle..

    "What is my 'boggle' "???
    -Wesley Snipe, DEMOLITION MAN

    But the determining factor is my own personal experiences. They jive with the psychological theories so that's what makes the most sense to me...

    Like I said.. I could be wrong.. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if I am..

    But until such time as the evidence POINTS to me being wrong, where I am is where I'll stay...

    Michale....

  86. [86] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But the determining factor is my own personal experiences. They jive with the psychological theories so that's what makes the most sense to me...

    what you and the psychoanalytic hypotheses (which are definitively NOT psychological evidence, by the way) do is address only one of the three dimensions of sexual orientation, the social identity, which you derogatorily refer to as a "lifestyle." that is the aspect that someone CAN choose.

    in that sense, you're right.

    you can identify yourself as anything you want at any given moment. you can be gay, straight, asexual, whatever. heck michale, if you want to identify as female, the law says you're allowed to go on hormone treatments and do so.

    however, what makes your prior statements (and theirs as well) offensive and wrong is that sexual orientation is also a statement of taste, which is a very different issue. people's tastes are developed very, very early - partly genetic, partly in-utero, partly early childhood - and they rarely change.

    even though taste impacts identity through its effects on behavior, taste is NOT the same thing as identity. but unless you specify which you mean, the default assumption is that you mean all three: taste->behavior->identity. someone whose taste is for only the same sex only has the "choice" between seeking out what they enjoy or enduring abject misery, regardless of whether or not they make that part of their identity.

    so, i know that you didn't mean to say something offensive, and i think what you MEANT to say was NOT offensive. however, for the reasons outlined above, what you DID write absolutely WAS offensive.

    I usually say, "F*ck the truth," but mostly, the truth f*cks you.
    ~angels in america

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    so, i know that you didn't mean to say something offensive, and i think what you MEANT to say was NOT offensive. however, for the reasons outlined above, what you DID write absolutely WAS offensive.

    Which time??

    Apparently, I am doing that a lot these days... :^/

    Michale....

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]