HuckaBOOM - leads Romney by 22

#26
#26
TennTradition said:
Papa wasn't arguing either way...he just made this comment .... to which Dizzy responded. This response from Dizzy would make sense because when he said that it would probably cost him the race in November, he was referring to the "isolating Aids patients" portion (as he backs up in his post following the "cost the election" post. So...Papa's response appeared to Dizzy to be associating gays with Aids I'm guessing. However, the article (and title as shown in the link) also pertains to Huckabee referring to homosexuality as sinful .... so Papa's response could have been asserting that it wouldn't cost him the election in November because the gay community (that Huck called sinners) don't vote Republican anyway. My guess is that no one directly drew the gay / Aids connection ... and it was the series of two psuedo-misunderstood posts. If anyone directly drew the connection..it could have been the author of the article....by putting those two points in the same article.
Click to expand...
Exactly... but why would Dizzy take that leap to assume that Papa was making a link between the two? I read Papa's response, and he in no way brought up HIV/AIDS and connecting it with homosexuality. All he was saying was that the gay vote normally doesn't swing Republican anyways, so it wouldn't be like it was a vote Huckabee would have been counting on anyway. Huckabee didn't even make the connection between HIV/AIDS and homosexuals. All Huck did (according to the article) was:

1. Call homosexuals "sinful"
2. Question the amount of money spent on AIDS research

The two points have absolutely nothing to do with one another, so why inject the idea that HIV isn't just isolated to homosexuals?

HIV is a little beyond gays is it not?
Click to expand...
Again... nobody was even arguing that point? Papa, Huck, or nobody else for that matter was making the argument that HIV only affected homosexuals. Just puzzles me where Dizzy's statement was coming from. :ermm: Or why he made it.
 
#27
#27
As I said, Dizzy's comment about Huck not winning was because (as he pointed out) he felt that he might not get elected after saying that "HIV/Aids patients should be isolated." Therefore, when Dizzy saw Papa's response to that statement mentioning gays, it isn't a stretch to wonder why Dizzy drew the connection. I don't want to speak for Dizzy, but it would seem to be a pretty clear connection to draw from Papa's reply, given the intent of Dizzy's post about Huck that was quoted by Papa.
 
#30
#30
TennTradition said:
Ummm...I think that he was referring to the post directly above his...quoted below.



Papa wasn't arguing either way...he just made this comment .... to which Dizzy responded. This response from Dizzy would make sense because when he said that it would probably cost him the race in November, he was referring to the "isolating Aids patients" portion (as he backs up in his post following the "cost the election" post. So...Papa's response appeared to Dizzy to be associating gays with Aids I'm guessing. However, the article (and title as shown in the link) also pertains to Huckabee referring to homosexuality as sinful .... so Papa's response could have been asserting that it wouldn't cost him the election in November because the gay community (that Huck called sinners) don't vote Republican anyway. My guess is that no one directly drew the gay / Aids connection ... and it was the series of two psuedo-misunderstood posts. If anyone directly drew the connection..it could have been the author of the article....by putting those two points in the same article.

That is the best assessment I can make by reading through the thread. No reason to pick a fight, IMO.
Click to expand...

What he said...:)
 
#31
#31
Rasputin_Vol said:
Exactly... but why would Dizzy take that leap to assume that Papa was making a link between the two? I read Papa's response, and he in no way brought up HIV/AIDS and connecting it with homosexuality. All he was saying was that the gay vote normally doesn't swing Republican anyways, so it wouldn't be like it was a vote Huckabee would have been counting on anyway. Huckabee didn't even make the connection between HIV/AIDS and homosexuals. All Huck did (according to the article) was:

1. Call homosexuals "sinful"
2. Question the amount of money spent on AIDS research

The two points have absolutely nothing to do with one another, so why inject the idea that HIV isn't just isolated to homosexuals?



Again... nobody was even arguing that point? Papa, Huck, or nobody else for that matter was making the argument that HIV only affected homosexuals. Just puzzles me where Dizzy's statement was coming from. :ermm: Or why he made it.
Click to expand...

I'll paraphrase what already has been thoroughly explained by Mr. Tradition (thank you sir). My reference was the overall article and how Huck's statements from a few years back would not play well in a general election matchup especially with how ads could be designed to slam him. Papa mentioned gays in response to my post. And since this article and issue involved a little more than Huck's comments on gays, I pointed that out. I never said HIV only affects gays. I was referring to another aspect of the issue back to my original point.
 
#32
#32
CSpindizzy said:
I'll paraphrase what already has been thoroughly explained by Mr. Tradition (thank you sir). My reference was the overall article and how Huck's statements from a few years back would not play well in a general election matchup especially with how ads could be designed to slam him. Papa mentioned gays in response to my post. And since this article and issue involved a little more than Huck's comments on gays, I pointed that out. I never said HIV only affects gays. I was referring to another aspect of the issue back to my original point.
Click to expand...

OK, you stated why it may not play well in a general election. I thought the quotes would if anything, boost his numbers. Papa stated it would probably have minimal affect on his numbers because the homosexual voters normally aren't votes that are counted on, anyway.

Then you make a statement about HIV not just being isolated to the gay community? What? Where did that come from?

Papa mentioned gays in response to my post. And since this article and issue involved a little more than Huck's comments on gays, I pointed that out.
Click to expand...

And you are absolutely correct... the article most certainly did involve a little more than his thoughts about homosexuals being "sinful". There was a totally unrelated point he made about quarantining AIDS patients and cutting gov't funding on AIDS research.

But in your response to Papa, you managed to bring the 2 totally unrelated subjects together as if there was any relationship between the two.
HIV is a little beyond gays is it not?
Click to expand...

What? It's tantamount to a politician making statements about defending the Second Amendment in one breath and talking about the lack of black male role models a little bit later in a speech. Two totally different subjects... But then you come in and make a statement like...
Support for gun control is a little beyond blacks, is it not?
Click to expand...

That is essentially what you did... you tried to tie together 2 totally unrelated subjects for some unknown reason.
 
#33
#33
Rasputin_Vol said:
you tried to tie together 2 totally unrelated subjects for some unknown reason.
Click to expand...

I call shenanigans. I'm pretty sure that my point is valid. When Dizzy said that these comments might cost Huck the election, he appeared to be referring to his comments about isolating AIDS patients ... not his comments about gays. In that context, when Papa replies to Dizzy's post and mentions gays, it is reasonable that Dizzy would then say ..... "AIDS goes beyond just gays..don't you think?"

If Dizzy had been focusing on the "gays are sinful" comment when he posted that this might cost Huck the election, then the question you are asking would be legitimate. But, based on the next post that Dizzy made after his "cost the election" post, the "gays are sinful" portion was not what Dizzy was focusing on.

I think you are making a stretch here...because you seem to be failing to acknowledge this point. If I'm wrong..then I'm wrong. But, something seems fishy in your argument.
 
#34
#34
TennTradition said:
I think you are making a stretch here...because you seem to be failing to acknowledge this point. If I'm wrong..then I'm wrong. But, something seems fishy in your argument.
Click to expand...

Here's what it is... the writer and to an extent Dizzy are trying to make a connection between the two.

The writer made an effort to highlight the Huckabee quote where he says he wants to isolate gays because they are sinful. Here is where the writer starts to plant the seed...

"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk," Huckabee wrote in the questionnaire for The Associated Press, which reported the answer on Saturday.
Click to expand...

Then he adds in this quote...

Huckabee also wrote that he wanted to quarantine AIDS patients, according to the AP:

"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.... It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."
Click to expand...

The intent is to lead you to think that there is a plan by Huckabee to quarantine (or isolate) gays, under the guise of public safety. I'm not even a die hard Huck supporter, but the intent is clear. By juxtaposing these 2 quotes from Huckabee, the writer is trying to create a syllogism as such...

Major premise: Gays carry the HIV virus
Minor premise: Huckabee believes HIV carriers should be isolated
Conclusion: Huckabee believes gays should be isolated
 
#35
#35
I think that the writer is definitely trying to draw some connections between Huck's "gays" comments and his "AIDS" comments. I do have to wonder what "public health concerns" Huck was speaking of in that quote, though. One could suppose that he was referring to HIV/AIDS.

In fairness, I think that the author of the article is trying to stir up debate. However, without even connecting his comments about AIDS to the gay community, the "isolation" comments can be debated. They seem to show a lack of understanding or acceptance of facts that appear to have been known at the time about how the virus is spread.
 
#36
#36
OK. Clearly no matter how many times this is explained to you, you just either ignore the explanation or just flat out do not get it.

I referred to the ENTIRE ARTICLE'S CONTENTS when making my comment about the November election. I don't think many who vote in the November election agree with his views. While it may boost his numbers in PRIMARIES, I think it has a detrimental effect on him for November. I made an all-encompassing comment about the ENTIRE issue. Papa made a comment in reply to mine that only focused on ONE issue. I said the HIV portion of this went beyond the gay point that Papa made. If anything you should have seen that I was saying that the HIV issue here actually includes more than just gays but everyone else who gets it as well. If anything I was saying this whole issue was more than just about the gay quotes Huck made.

So please before you clearly take anything out of context or tell me I am saying things that I clearly did not, please read everything and just ask rather than make assumptions. I seriously think you're looking for conspiracies that are not really there. Had you seen my previous quotes you would have gotten my point.

Here's something that fits right in with my whole point: My Way News - AIDS Comments Alarm Ryan White's Mother
 
#37
#37
I've had a chance to look at some of the fine print of the latest polls coming out with the Huck surge. Every single one indicates one thing consistent with polls for the past few months: the base STILL has not committed to their candidate. Every one of the polls shows those asked say they are still not completely sure about who they support. They indicate they could change by a 3 to 1 margin. In other words, just as McCain surged, Giuliani surged, Thompson surged, etc. Huck could just be a trend of surge and then drop. What it comes down to is time. We're getting into the peak holiday time. More people are out and about shopping and traveling and are less likely to take looks at mail and television. So anything going out to counter a surge could be a little too late. Romney's sending out the attack ads today and I'm sure now he's opened that door others will soon follow. He has the most to lose. If he loses IA, McCain or Rudy could surge in NH and that could be Mitt's nail in the coffin.
 
#38
#38
I think most of the fluctuations right now are due to the base trolling around for an actual Republican to get in the ring with Giuliani.
 
#39
#39
John Linder (Fair Tax mastermind in the House) has endorsed Huck. With Boortz support I guess this is his key issue now?
 
#40
#40
Linder is now taking flak for endorsing Romney earlier in the year. And supposedly at the Gwinnett GOP straw poll, Linder's speech all but rallied to Thompson. Odd that he's now taking the opportunity to endorse Huck only when Huck is up in the polls.
 
#41
#41
CSpindizzy said:
Linder is now taking flak for endorsing Romney earlier in the year. And supposedly at the Gwinnett GOP straw poll, Linder's speech all but rallied to Thompson. Odd that he's now taking the opportunity to endorse Huck only when Huck is up in the polls.
Click to expand...

Yeah...shocking! :unsure:

:birgits_giggle:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top