Mitt Romney Gargles Nutsacks

[Perhaps]

It would be considered acting upon emotion, which in this case was not a rational thing to do as it will not provide a positive outcome - unless you get pleasure by demeaning others.

[Napoléon]

It would be considered acting upon emotion, which in this case was not a rational thing to do as it will not provide a positive outcome - unless you get pleasure by demeaning others.

Wait what? It was basically another way of saying "you are wrong". Sure it had more 'emotion' to it, if you want to call it that. It was in no way irrational to say you were wrong however. How is providing a 'positive outcome' in this instance relevant to your original point?

[Perhaps]

Wait what? It was basically another way of saying "you are wrong". Sure it had more 'emotion' to it, if you want to call it that. It was in no way irrational to say you were wrong however. How is providing a 'positive outcome' in this instance relevant to your original point?

Original point:

Personally, I'd prefer someone who thinks logically with no emotion.

You'll notice two things. One, I prefaced the statement with the word personally which creates a contextual and subjective conversation. Two, to be with character requires emotion, which I stated I would prefer none to exist.

As to how providing a positive outcome is relevant to this point, because of its subjective nature as a statement I am correct unto myself. To state otherwise would create a situation where subjective statements are pitted against each other in an ineffective manner - thus making the statement of contradiction unreasonable (there is no right answer in subjective conversation).

In relation to the conversation objectively, this whole subjective conversation proves my original point. To use reason and logic to come to an objective answer is much more efficient than utilizing emotions while attempting to be rational.

What, so you're saying character and rationality are incompatible? Don't be fucking stupid. I'd prefer someone who thinks logically AND is a person with good character.

I did not say that character and rationality are incompatible, simply inefficient in the realm of politics. As to your preference, we each are entitled to our own, I'm not going to say your wrong in an objective sense simply because I am pitting a subjective statement against another. If you wish to discuss the objective answer to this then simply say so. By adding emotion into a logical discussion it only retards the progress.

---

Someone who is purely logical can only produce logic, while someone who is purely emotional can purely produce irrationality. To mix both is nice, but not effective - especially in objectively running a government.

[Shell B]

What was he supposed to do? Politics aren't nice, they aren't easy, and they don't abide by what you think they should - especially when it comes to lying and manipulation of emotion.

Does that matter in the slightest? Should the "ease" of politics matter when a politician is, above all else, a public figure? Yes, they should abide by what people think they should abide by. That is why they are our representatives. The politics game may be corrupt right now, but that in no way means that we should lie down and take it as you appear to think we should.

He is running on a republican vote, therefore he needs to adopt the republican platform. He can't deviate from an original statement or else he loses credibility. He can't argue with a man who is dying or else he becomes a heartless bastard. He can and did remain silent to support himself in the only way possible.

So what? He can stick to his original statement and answer a direct fucking question at the same time. As much as Ron Paul is just another idiot he at least answered the very same question from the very same man. Hmmm. . . Seems to me like Mitt was dodging.

If you want to bring emotions into an emotionless game then go ahead, but you won't win.

If politics is an emotionless game then what is it? From where I am sitting, it is all about emotion.

All that matters is reputation, respect, and public appearance. He's going to lose your vote, but he's going to keep the ones that matter - the majority.

Uh, yeah, and he fudged on the respect part.

The only thing that matters is his signature if he becomes president. Most likely he won't even be signing a single bit of legislation in regards to the legalization of marijuana anyway, so I would let it go.

Good for you. I'm not going to let it go. A president who would take medicine out of a dying man's hand and put him in jail does matter. Chances are, he will sign legislation that involves the drug war. Do you live under a rock?

Focus on what matters and take your emotions out of the game - that's politics.

It's not about emotions, but thanks for the "advice." Seriously, for someone who spends half of his time in these forums telling people how to behave, you sure have a lot of negative things to say about emotions.

[Perhaps]

Does that matter in the slightest? Should the "ease" of politics matter when a politician is, above all else, a public figure? Yes, they should abide by what people think they should abide by. That is why they are our representatives. The politics game may be corrupt right now, but that in no way means that we should lie down and take it as you appear to think we should.

I don't try to dictate how anyone should feel or think, I simply analyze situations which are presented. The reason politics are corrupted are because of emotions, or the absence of logic. I'm not saying that it can never be fixed, but I'd rather utilize and work with the situation while progressing, than strictly fighting the system of remaining at war infinitely.

So what? He can stick to his original statement and answer a direct fucking question at the same time. As much as Ron Paul is just another idiot he at least answered the very same question from the very same man. Hmmm. . . Seems to me like Mitt was dodging.

We'll see who's actions provided the best outcome in a few months.

If politics is an emotionless game then what is it? From where I am sitting, it is all about emotion.

Politics is the manipulation of emotion on a sociological scale. To effectively manipulate emotion it requires a vast amount of logic.

Good for you. I'm not going to let it go. A president who would take medicine out of a dying man's hand and put him in jail does matter. Chances are, he will sign legislation that involves the drug war. Do you live under a rock?

Try to run an effective administration while attending to each individual within the jurisdiction of the government. Its an objective game which is corrupted by the subjective individual. No, I don't live under a rock Shell, thanks though for the demeaning tones.

It's not about emotions, but thanks for the "advice." Seriously, for someone who spends half of his time in these forums telling people how to behave, you sure have a lot of negative things to say about emotions.

Everything is contextual, I make statements using thought, and at times emotion.

[Napoléon]

Original point:

Personally, I'd prefer someone who thinks logically with no emotion.

You'll notice two things. One, I prefaced the statement with the word personally which creates a contextual and subjective conversation.

Squirming already?

Two, to be with character requires emotion, which I stated I would prefer none to exist.

And you are correct because? You say so? That's not how this works. You can have good character but still go about your job in a professional and 'emotionless' if you want to call it that, manner.

As to how providing a positive outcome is relevant to this point, because of its subjective nature as a statement I am correct unto myself.

Say whaaaaat? You are right, because you are right? Is that what you're saying? Jeeeez.

To state otherwise would create a situation where subjective statements are pitted against each other in an ineffective manner - thus making the statement of contradiction unreasonable (there is no right answer in subjective conversation).

OK, this I get. However I don't think that it is subjective what we are discussing here.
But hey, that's my subjective opinion, so where does that leave us?

In relation to the conversation objectively, this whole subjective conversation proves my original point. To use reason and logic to come to an objective answer is much more efficient than utilizing emotions while attempting to be rational.

Hmm, misinterpreting what I was doing. I was not using emotions whilst attempting to be rational, I was being rational and logical AND reasonable in a way in which you perceived to be emotional. Your point is mute.

I did not say that character and rationality are incompatible, simply inefficient in the realm of politics.

Seemed that way to me

As to your preference, we each are entitled to our own, I'm not going to say your wrong in an objective sense simply because I am pitting a subjective statement against another. If you wish to discuss the objective answer to this then simply say so. By adding emotion into a logical discussion it only retards the progress.

You retarded the progress by choosing to make a point of it.

Someone who is purely logical can only produce logic, while someone who is purely emotional can purely produce irrationality. To mix both is nice, but not effective - especially in objectively running a government.

Says who? Again you're just asserting this based on your own opinion. Well guess what, THAT is subjective.

---

If politics is an emotionless game then what is it? From where I am sitting, it is all about emotion.

Damnit, said what I couldn't in so few words

[Perhaps]

Notice, this whole conversation could have been avoided had you not made the statement:

Don't be fucking stupid.

A question or a counter remark acts as a medium through which an objective conversation can take place. Simply adding emotion to the discussion does retard the progress - we had to discuss the semantics of it and there were emotional ramifications.

Someone can possess character - but then who's to say which character is good or pure or moral? Logic is objective, why pollute it with subjectivity?

If you disagree then simply state why, using logic and reason. No need to get emotional about it. Thus is my original argument as it pertains to politics.

[Shell B]

Listen, I am not going to pander to your contradictory arguments, perhaps. It is ludicrous to tell someone how they should behave and then act all butthurt when they reply in a "demeaning" tone.

"Hey, buddy. You should stop doing this, this and this."

"Don't be stupid."

"Thanks for being so demeaning."

Yeah, your bitch fits hold water like a colander.

[Napoléon]

Fuck me, you 'retarded the progress' because of yourself. I've had countless discussions using phrases like that and you are the only person to make a fucking point out of it.
Maybe look in the mirror for signs of retardation.

I stated my original point. Go back and look at it if you like.

As for logic being objective? I disagree. Logic is man made, it is subjective.

[Perhaps]

I made a clear subjective statement - from which I was then criticized. I defended my statement in an objective manner.

The beauty of life is choice. You have a choice to agree or disagree or remain neutral about my subjective statement. Are you going to get upset when I tell you that you have a choice, even if it's objectively true?

You can misrepresent what I say, and attack it as being ludicrous. But I try my best to avoid emotion, especially when talking about something objectively. You can say you disagree with my subjective statement, or you can say you disagree and then attack me emotionally. Language is a beautiful thing which can be used to help or hurt whoever is using it, and in most cases we use it to help ourselves.