1/24/2012

Saint Newt Gingrich

Story Sent in by Gemma:

This occurred just last Friday:

I liked Liam's profile essays, so I wrote him a message to say hello. He wrote back with a nice email and ended it with, "I know this is a bit forward, but would you like to meet up for coffee? Might as well see if there's an in person connection instead of waiting for it."

I didn't see why not, and we made plans to do just that. At this point, I should mention that I used to be a Jon Huntsman supporter before he bowed out of the primaries, and now I support Mitt Romney.

At the cafe, we sat down with our drinks and he asked me if I had caught the GOP debate the night before. I had. He said, not yet knowing who I supported, "If Dirtbag wins the nomination, I'm going to vote Obama, swear to God."

"Who is 'Dirtbag'?"

He gave me a look. "Who do you think? Romney. Dirtbag is as dirtbag does." I was silent, and he saw right through it. He asked, "You're a Dirtbag supporter? You? Really?"

I replied, "I support Romney."

"Oh. Dirtbag. Got it," he said with a smile, "You support Dirtbag. No problem, here."

I repeated, "Romney. Who do you support?"

"Uh, Newt. Duh."

I gave him an are-you-serious look, and he asked, "Do you believe in God?"

"Yes."

"Newt is the anointed one. The guy's practically a saint."

I asked, "Isn't he kind of morally bankrupt?"

Liam laughed long and hard, then said, "Dirtbag propaganda. Newt has powers beyond comprehension. He gave us a house majority and forced Clinton's hand on everything. He's the most well-read out of any candidate ever, and he's a master at accomplishing the impossible. He's touched. I can't think of a better role model for Americans. Can you?"

I opened my mouth to list the hundred better role models who immediately came to mind. Liam interrupted, "And don't mention Dirtbag. He's beneath contempt."

I suggested, "What say we put politics aside?"

Liam said, "Works for me. You concede your loss and we can move on."

"Excuse me? Concede my… what?"

Liam repeated, "Concede your loss. In our little debate, here. Concede your loss and we'll talk about whatever you want: sports, life, the weather, anything. Concede your loss."

I gave him a hard stare. "I didn't lose anything. We just talked about the candidates. There was no debate."

"You need to listen to yourself," Liam said, "You're not making any sense. Concede your loss. Simple. Easy. Not hard. Easy. Concede your loss." He smiled such a sanctimonious smile that a large part of me wanted to slap it right off of his face. At that point, I could've cared less about who he supported: it was his way of talking to me, like I was an infant, that riled me up.

I said, "I'm not conceding anything. There's nothing to concede."

He stood up and extended his hand to me. "Excuse me, please. I have someplace else to be at this time." I didn't shake his hand. He said, "Shake it."

I remained motionless. He repeated, "Shake it. Do you have a problem with English, today?"

I replied, "Not as big a problem as you seem to have with reality."

Liam retracted his hand, gave me a military salute, said, "Hail, President Dirtbag!" and goose-stepped out of the cafe. Amused patrons watched him go. As for me, I gathered up my bag, coat, and returned home to block his account.

55 comments:

  1. Conservative women are like leprechauns. I know they exist, but I've never seen one. Not MY age, anyway.

    Anyhoo, it's rarely a good idea to bring up religion or politics on a first date.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm friends with one. She's crazy hot, but also 23 and still has a lot of her rich mommy and daddy's beliefs. It's incredibly frustrating. She's also voting for Newt, but she's at least *realistic* about who he is as a person and as a candidate.

      Delete
    2. I like crazy hot 23 year olds...

      Delete
  2. We need less polticial based bad date stories, as they make me want to go to sleep at my desk.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sometimes candidates can be defined by the character of their supporters. This is one of those times.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're right, Joe. There have just been so many of the lately.

    I have a problem when people yearn so fervently for someone other than the person in the mirror to change things for the better.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You should have conceded OP, because clearly he was right. Not only that, but Newt Gingrich also has the ability to fly and the power of mind control over lesser beings. (He received that ability after the first time he died for our sins.)

    It's all clearly there - right in the Book of Newt! Vindications, Chapter 5, Verse 17.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I disagree! I want to see more Republican dating stories. I've always loved science fiction. Mitt, Rick and Newt...ye gods these men are idiots and fascinating.

    I dated a woman I met online and we started talking about politics and it turned out she was stanch Republican. I just couldn't see the relationship going anywhere. As soon as I could I politely bailed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, that's remarkably intolerant and close-minded of you. A lot of Democrats hold up far-right religious extremists as an example of narrow minded Republicans can be, but it's remarkable how they seem to overlook far-left extremism in their own ranks.

      Personally, I'm an independent voter (and a Taoist) and I tend to vote Democrat but I would cheerfully date a Republican woman if she could coherently argue her case. And I've voted Republican in the past as well. There are plenty of perfectly valid reasons to vote Republican besides conservative values - not everyone believes in an entitlement state or the idea that the government knows whats best for us.

      Delete
    2. I dated a Republican before and we got along great. We debated politics civilly as well as talking about other topics. It didn't work out because of timing more than anything, not because of both of our political views. It can work. But this guy was a controlling jackass. That wouldn't work if he was a Republican or Democrat.

      Delete
    3. I know a lot of people who say they couldn't be involved seriously with someone who didn't share their political views. While I understand that, I'm glad I'm not like that: I have very unconventional political views and would be pretty lonely if I needed my partner to share them.

      Delete
  7. FACT #1: Fox News viewers are the least informed demographic out there. FACT #2: Fox News viewers don't care about fact #1 - after all, facts have a well-known liberal bias.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, what's your point? Two of my best friends are Republican, and they're very educated and intelligent people who make a strong case for their beliefs. In private, they freely admit that Fox news is garbage, nor do they care about the religious aspect of the republican party (one of them is an atheist and the other is Buddhist). To them, these are simply tools to get the ignorant sheep to follow along. They're realistic enough to recognize that most people are stupid and pragmatic enough to use the tools at their disposal to manipulate idiots into following their lead (in their eyes, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons). I can definitely respect that.

      Delete
    2. A Buddhist Republican... now THAT is funny.

      Delete
    3. Look, the fact is that despite the ignorant mob of zealots (who are controlled by religion and Fox News), there is a core of very smart people in the Republican party who have studied the issues carefully and have very valid reasons for their beliefs (even if those private reasons are not the same as their publically stated ones). If you're ignorant enough to genuinely think that the Republican party got this far by actually *believing* everything that they put forth to the masses, then maybe YOU're the one watching Fox news. ;-)

      Delete
    4. Yes, I think I understand: Republicans are the party of rich white guys. Rich white guys are terrified of a black Democrat in the White House, regulations, and a tax rate above 15% - 25%, I think. So they've whipped up the ignorant into a frenzy with their dog-whistle calls of "socialism" and "big bad government come to take what's yours" to scare the useful idiots (not my term) into doing their bidding and voting against their own best interests. All so that people like Mitt Romney can continue to pay a 13.4% tax rate while raking in billions over companies he and his buddies took over and sold off firesale-style, while the average American what works 40+ hrs. a week is being told that we can't afford universal health care and education because deficits are terribly important - except they weren't until a Democrat got elected to the White House. Yes, i think I understand.

      Delete
    5. OK, it REALLY looks like you've skipped your research here. For example, you mention universal health care, and Mitt Romney was one of the universal health care pioneers. The universal health care system known as Obamacare is BASED on the system that Romney instituted while he was governor of Massachusetts. Are you seriously naive enough to believe that Romney completely lost faith in this system that he pioneered and implemented to great success? Obviously he has to repudiate it now to appeal to mob mentality, but he's a smart guy and I don't think he'd abandon something that works very well. He'd probably just rebrand it as an individual option that every state has the right to choose or not choose at their discretion, and then artificially create much better incentives to choose the plan so that it's not really an actual choice. Obviously I can't read his mind or anything, but that's just the logical thing to do and he seems like a very rational person.

      As far as his taxes, I totally agree with you. But what're you gonna do? There's a million ways to skim off the top: Republicans do it through corporations, Democrats do it through unions. I just take it for granted that there'll be a certain amount of corruption in government.

      Also, please cancel the "white male dominance" speech. That's ignorant and racist. Do you seriously think that there's some feeling of brotherhood between a billionaire or a mine worker just because both of them happen to be white males? Open your eyes...

      Delete
    6. There's nothing to admire in Romney, because he doesn't stand for anything. He was elected in a moderate state, so he had moderate policies. Now, to appeal to his base, he repudiates those same policies. He clearly values power, over any coherent belief system. The fact that you seem to think its ok that he be duplicitous to get elected, seems strange to me.

      The comment section here today, reads like one at Huffington Post. Lol.

      Delete
    7. It's funny you should say, "cancel the white male dominance" thing when it's Republicans who have been milking this for decades, but never in more dramatic paranoid fashion than the last four years. I suppose it's liberals who invented the Republican talk about an "entitlement society" where the lazy can mooch off those untouchable job creators, right? That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Democrats are standing up (albeit feebly) for the rights of the middle class against the oligarchy, right?

      By the way, there's a law out there, called the Affordable Care Act, but Republicans have mastered the art of reframing all conversations under their own childish terms. Hence you have risible Republican legislation titles like the PATRIOT act (anything but patriotic) while the media and the right wing can't go out of their way enough to call the ACA "Obamacare." Calling it names and lying about what it does, does not change the reality of it, however. And it does not take away the supreme hypocrisy of Romney running away desperately from his own creation - only a Republican in this current climate would disown something he used to support, purely for political gain.

      It's Republicans who have called themselves the true patrotic Americans, accusing the other side of nothing less than treason. It's Republicans who pretend they are the true children of God, even as they sow their intolerance and prejudice. It's been Republicans, FFS, who took to the streets with signs of Obama with a Hitler mustache, decrying "get government off my Medicare!," betraying both their own pathetic ignorance and the monumental hypocrisy on the right.

      There's nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism, with wanting a little less regulation and a little more self-reliance. There is something terribly wrong, however, with the nihilistic hypocrisy of Republicans, now more or less hell bent on destroying Obama even if 3/4 of all Americans have to get caught in the crossfire.

      Delete
    8. I haven't decided to vote for Romney yet - I greatly admire Obama's stance on social policy (particularly his support of gay rights) despite his clumsy mishandling of the economy, so to me, it's still a toss up. In answer to your question, I simply believe in utilitarian principles, so (generally) the end justifies the means. Here's a question for you - why do you seem to believe that the desire for power and the desire to help people are mutually exclusive? Can't a person strive to achieve their full potential (whatever they consider that to be) while helping others along the way? For example, Bill Gates was a ruthless CEO while at the same time being one of the greatest philanthropists of our time.

      Delete
    9. ^ (The above was addressed to Jules, BTW)

      Delete
    10. Churro... OMG. I won't hold this rant against you, since I used to think the same thing back when I was a Democrat. "Republicans are the root of all evil! Republicans block all progress!" What changed is I started to fact check the propaganda - not just Republican propaganda, but also my own side's propaganda as well. And once I did the research, I realized I couldn't ethically be a Democrat any longer.

      But that's beside the point. What you're essentially doing here is taking ignorant fringe republicans - idiots and fanatics like the religious right or the Tea Partiers - and claiming that they represent the Republican party. This - in my eyes - is no different from when Republicans hold up an ignorant left wing hippy protester (who has no awareness of the issues and is probably only there to get a date) and hold him up as an example of the Democratic party. Do you see what I'm saying? You are being every bit as much of a partisan extremist as the commentators on Fox news! You mock and disparage Republicans based on a stereotype when it's clear you've never actually taken the time to have a conversation with a sensible and reasonable one. Based on some of your farfetched - and completely subjective - claims (Democrats are the only ones standing up for the middle class! Republicans are hypocrites who believe they are the true children of God!) it's clear you've never taken the time to actually try to UNDERSTAND the other side without slinging accusations.

      Don't you think maybe it's about time you give that a try? I mean, you're the one claiming that Democrats are the open-minded party of understanding and compassion - maybe it's time to start living it instead of just preaching it.

      Delete
    11. Hear hear! Wolfdreams is my hero.

      In a conservative-backed, non-homosexual kind of way.

      Delete
    12. Aw, wolfie, it's so cute when you feed the Obvious Trolls. <3

      Delete
    13. A troll's gotta eat...

      Delete
  8. Arguing which Republican is best is like debating which is the superior STD.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A friend once told me that election season was his favourite time every four years because he could just turn on the television and watch comedy in any news channel.

      Delete
    2. Don't blame ME, *I* voted for AIDs!

      Delete
  9. You two will be very happy together.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Liam was such a pompous fuck, I wish I could go to his house and punch him for being a guy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Any woman who would choose a candidate who will work towards taking away her reproductive rights is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When does the child gain the right to life? When it is viable outside of the womb? At full term? On their first birthday? When they can fully take care of themselves?

      Why is the mother's rights more important than the child's rights?

      Delete
    2. When does the child gain the right to life? When it is viable outside of the womb? At full term? On their first birthday? When they can fully take care of themselves?

      Why is the mother's rights more important than the child's rights?

      Delete
    3. ^ You have GOT to be trolling. Seriously? You NEVER thought about applying logical analysis to this issue? I find it hard to believe that anybody would be that willfully ignorant.

      I call Troll on this one.

      Delete
    4. Maybe trolling for information. I consider myself a libertarian and therefore believe in a high level of personal rights. Abortion is one of the issues I go back and forth on. It seems to me that some people laud the mother's rights over the right's of the child's simply because the child is young. If the child has rights then abortion is a form of age discrimination.

      I'm sorry if I look like a troll. I've just never really got a good answer to this question. If everyone has the right to life why doesn't a fetus? Is the argument that it's not human until a certain point? If so at what point is it human and why was that point chosen.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. OK, fair enough. In that case, I will explain this to you. Universal truth generally comes from universal principles that can be applied logically and rationally to all situations. For example, the Church once believed that the solar system revolved around the earth. This was stupid because they constantly had to draw up more complicated models of how the solar system worked every time a planet did something that they couldn't understand - simply because they refused to challenge the principles of their faith. Copericus's heliocentric model was simple and explained everything. That's how REAL truth works - it doesn't come from complicated explanations by religious figures, it comes from simple principles that can be applied globally. You with me so far?

      What I am challenging you on is that the fetus is a child, because this makes no logical sense and cannot be applied globally. If you believe that life begins wherever there is the POTENTIAL for life, then every time you masturbate you're causing a holocaust. If you step on a certain species of newt (which reproduces by parthenogenesis) then by logical extrapolation you have just killed INFINITE newts. The idea that life begins at conception is ridiculous because when you logically try to apply that principle globally, it results in ludicrous scenarios that make no sense.

      Logic thus dictates that you need a different principle to distinguish between when the fetus is alive and when it is just an appendage of the mother - one of her own organs, so the speak. The most obvious thing that differentiates between a living being and an organ is the ability to think. After all, who heard of an organ with independent thought? Thus the fetus should be considered a child once it has actual brain activity; ie, only in the third trimester. That's just common sense.

      Now, the U.S. supports freedom of religion, and you're free to believe whatever you want, regardless of whether it's logical or not. What I'm trying to explain is why your saying that the fetus is a child will cause rational scientific people to hate you, and moreover, why you would DESERVE to be hated for that. By claiming that the 1st or 2nd trimester fetus is a child - in defiance of all scientific and logical reasons to the contrary - you are essentially saying that your irrational belief system takes precedence over their freedom of choice which is derived from objective logic and analysis. Can you not see how this is wrong? If you ever want to get reasonable people to stop hating the pro-life camp, then you need to first use science - not faith - to demonstrate that the fetus IS alive, because so far all the evidence indicates the contrary.

      Delete
    7. I am only trying to debate the science. Some babies have survived before the third trimester, even as early as 23 weeks. Which would be just over half the tradition gestation period of a human and before the third trimester. To me it seems ludicrous to claim that they are not alive. Just doing some reading here and it seems to me that the science is inconclusive.

      Since we're talking about human lives I personally error on the side of caution. You won't need a womb to have a baby and this whole discussion will be moot.

      Delete
    8. Sorry it's supposed to be "*Soon* you won't need a womb to have a baby and this whole discussion will be moot."

      Delete
    9. So maybe the third trimester is slightly too far. Maybe it should be 45 days. Maybe abortions should only occur in the first trimester.

      See, THAT kind of stuff is all negotiable (at least to me), and if all pro-life members had that kind of reasonable approach then I think this would be a much saner topic. Unfortunately, most pro-lifers (at least in my experience) seem more prone to making accusations of murder and invoking outdated religions than sitting down and having a rational scientific discourse about the subject.

      Delete
    10. I hope I hit the right reply button. Re: the life/choice discussion

      It is a very difficult issue. I do see your point numbers. I don't have such well thought-out sciency reasons for my stance on it like wolfdreams does.

      But I've always felt pretty much the same, that the fetus is not a fully formed person until a certain point. And accidental pregnancies are so easy to come by, in such a wide variety of situations, ranging from whoops to horrifying. I cannot consciously support in a law that would force any girl/woman to go through with any and all pregnancies, whether she wants to or not. I just fully believe that it should be a right to be able to choose to put your body through that, even if it means deciding on the life or death of a potential person. So yes, I guess I do think a woman's rights trump those of a fertilized egg. I also think there should be a window of time to decide this, and if she misses it then it's no longer an option.

      Also, a much sillier argument I've always carried around in my head (though I've never voiced this out loud so we'll see if I get bad backlash): animals in the wild have the ability to decide if they get pregnant at a certain time or not, I think they even have the ability to self-abort, and they certainly sometimes kill the young after its born if they feel they can't raise it. Now, I'm definitely not saying we should be able to do all of THAT, but if animals can choose, by gum so can I.

      Delete
  12. I don't think this date actually happened. I think Jared wrote it up himself (he's very talented) and posted it just to get a rise out of his Legion of Trolls. Come clean, Jared!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've sent in my resume to be a member of the Legion. I hear they have a great dental and vision plan.

      Delete
  13. Awesome. As soon as I saw it was about politics I knew there would be a ton of comments. And all the usual suspects showed up. The All Republicans are stupid! camp vs The Voice of Actual Reason (thank you wolfdreams) camp. I didn't really see the Republicans are the only answer to all life's problems camp, maybe they're having lunch XD

    If ever I saw a serious republican candidate who WASN'T anti-gay or anti-choice, I could possibly vote for them. Until then, unfortunately they get no love. And I still have residual shame/stupidity shock from one Sarah Palin. Not that I couldn't go on a date with a republican however. Maybe not the one OP tried a date with though. Craziness aside, can you imagine how he talks to other people in his life? Ick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I totally agree - the anti-gay rhetoric is one of the main reasons I never crossed over fully to the Republican camp. My Republican besties have nothing against gays but don't really care FOR them either (so throwing a few people to the wolves in order to get hate-votes is fine for them) but I have a lot of gay friends so that's a sacrifice that I'm not really willing to make. :-(

      Delete
  14. Wolfie for Prez, 2016!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wait, I think you are all missing the biggest moment here!!!!

    The man GOOSE STEPPED out!!!! That was his triumphant exit---GOOSE STEPPING

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wait, I think you are all missing the biggest moment here!!!!

    The man GOOSE STEPPED out!!!! That was his triumphant exit---GOOSE STEPPING

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think the republican candidates and Obama should have a sing-off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YES. And since I watch Glee, this immediately became a Glee parody in my head. Obama could be a Warbler maybe. I don't know the individual republican candidates well enough to assign them specific characters, so they can be the hockey or football team. It'd be all Red letterman jackets vs. Blue blazer with bad and/or catchy pop songs. Golden.

      Delete
  18. ^ Precisely. A giant game of Capture the Flag in Halo gear would also be an acceptable parody, in lieu of a sing/dance off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sigh, I knew it. Wrong reply button. @ Dan.

      Delete

Content Policy

A Bad Case of the Dates reserves the right to publish or not publish any submitted content at any time, and by submitting content to A Bad Case of the Dates, you retain original copyright, but are granting us the right to post, edit, and/or republish your content forever and in any media throughout the universe. If Zeta Reticulans come down from their home planet to harvest bad dating stories, you could become an intergalactic megastar. Go you!

A Bad Case of the Dates is not responsible for user comments. We also reserve the right to delete any comments at any time and for any reason. We're hoping to not have to, though.

Aching to reach us? abadcaseofthedates at gmail dot com.