Confirmed: Jon Huntsman is a wanker

[Jeff Lebowski]

Memo to self: Next time I get caught making shit up, claim that I was speaking "metaphorically".

[oxcoug]

Bowman has this right:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...icans?page=0,0

I think he does and he doesn't. I disagree with his premise (if I've understood it correctly) that the two represent two distinct "types" of Mormonism.

They are themselves - Mitt Romney and John Huntsman. Romney's occasional awkwardness on LDS questions has a lot more to do with who he is than it has to do with something in his religious identity. And the same w/ Huntsmans faux rock & roll thing. It's just who he is.

Personally I don't think either can get out of the primary - but I think either would actually have a shot in the general if they could get there.

But there's no doubt that Huntsman's a boot-licking sycophant who just needs a little proximity to power to spring a boner. The very first time I heard him talk was in his obsequious introduction of Sarah Palin at the 2008 Republican convention. It was so embarrassing I almost had to walk out.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think he does and he doesn't. I disagree with his premise (if I've understood it correctly) that the two represent two distinct "types" of Mormonism.

They are themselves - Mitt Romney and John Huntsman. Romney's occasional awkwardness on LDS questions has a lot more to do with who he is than it has to do with something in his religious identity. And the same w/ Huntsmans faux rock & roll thing. It's just who he is.

Personally I don't think either can get out of the primary - but I think either would actually have a shot in the general if they could get there.

But there's no doubt that Huntsman's a boot-licking sycophant who just needs a little proximity to power to spring a boner. The very first time I heard him talk was in his obsequious introduction of Sarah Palin at the 2008 Republican convention. It was so embarrassing I almost had to walk out.

To be fair, a lot of people lost their heads when Sarah Palin first hit the scene. You should have seen how SU and MW were fawning and gushing over her. Talk about embarrassing.

[tooblue]

The inclusion of the word 'physically' was sloppy. It implied that you were speaking literally, when you were obviously speaking metaphorically. That kind of sloppiness does not make you a decent wordsmith, nor does DDD's ability to see past it.

No, one doesn't need to determine 'what is correct' to identify logical fallacies. Also, a basic class in rhetoric or logic or set theory would all equip a person with the tools needed to identify logical fallacies. One wouldn't need to be an 'authority on logic' in order to do so.

And finally, I noticed you didn't say anything about your 'tenacious defensiveness.'

The inclusion was deliberate and in that instance I was speaking metaphorically for impact. It worked. Also, it is possible to both speak literally and metaphorically in the same argument. That's the beauty of being human and not a machine.

To be crystal clear, as far as your logical fallacy argument is concerned your original response could be construed as ad hominen delivered on a bed of compliments (warning: metaphorical language). Therefore your comments are in fact a logical fallacy.

Perhaps my so called defensiveness isn't defensiveness. Again, another logical fallacy on your part.

[tooblue]

Memo to self: Next time I get caught making shit up, claim that I was speaking "metaphorically".

See Robin: more ad hominen!

[Jeff Lebowski]

See Robin: more ad hominen!

No, no, no. Mocking your use of a blatant factual error to bolster your argument is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be something like "tooblue is the biggest jerk I have ever met, on the internet or in person." Ironically, this would also include some bullshit ..... errr ..... a factual error .... errr .... metaphorical language since you and I have never met in person.

[SeattleUte]

Memo to self: Next time I get caught making shit up, claim that I was speaking "metaphorically".

lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a brilliant ironist you are.

I think you have received that memo a long time ago. I think every progressive Mormon I've ever known has received that memo, to the extent they purport to speak for JS.

[Jeff Lebowski]

lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a brilliant ironist you are.

I think you have received that memo a long time ago. I think every progressive Mormon I've ever known has received that memo, to the extent they purport to speak for JS.

touche'

[SeattleUte]

That seems a bit harsh.

to say Jon Huntsman is "trying to fit in" is quite funny, like saying "Michael Jordan got a late start playing and was always trying to learn the game of basketball." Jon Huntsman has fit in like Rome whipped the Cartheginians; he has plowed fitting in under and salted the earth.

[LA Ute]

Seems like Huntsman's role so far is to be "Not Mitt." I wonder if that's really what he wants.

[SeattleUte]

Seems like Huntsman's role so far is to be "Not Mitt." I wonder if that's really what he wants.

I heard Huntsman tells people privately and NOT unhappily one of his sons is Buddhist and the other a Mormon unbeliever.

[pellegrino]

I think he does and he doesn't. I disagree with his premise (if I've understood it correctly) that the two represent two distinct "types" of Mormonism.

They are themselves - Mitt Romney and John Huntsman. Romney's occasional awkwardness on LDS questions has a lot more to do with who he is than it has to do with something in his religious identity. And the same w/ Huntsmans faux rock & roll thing. It's just who he is.

two things:

I think Bowman is accurate in his description of two different strains of Mormonism. Though I wouldn't want to limit it to just two, I think we are passing through a period where Mormonism is becoming more multi-cutural and Mormons are finding new ways to interpret their religion.

Romney and Huntsman are definitely products of their culture. You cannot discount their respective relationships to Mormonism and the decisions they have made with regards to it as an important formative force in their lives. In many ways, Mitt is everyone's bishop/stake president and Huntsman is the guy every priesthood leader is talking about in their PEC trying to figure out how to get him on the straight and narrow ("He's such a talented man, I just wish he'd dedicate those talents to the Lord").

IOTW, to say that their religious identity (particularly when directly asked about that identity) doesn't play a significant part in who they are, how they interact with society, and how they view society is just plain ingenuous.

[RC Vikings]

I heard Huntsman tells people privately and unhappily one of his sons is Buddhist and the other a Mormon unbeliever.

So what son is he unhappy with?

[SeattleUte]

So what son is he unhappy with?

woops, meant to say NOT unhappily.

[tooblue]

No, no, no. Mocking your use of a blatant factual error to bolster your argument is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be something like "tooblue is the biggest jerk I have ever met, on the internet or in person." Ironically, this would also include some bullshit ..... errr ..... a factual error .... errr .... metaphorical language since you and I have never met in person.

Elsewhere on this message board I called you a jerk after you called me an asshole ... which must too be considered the use of metaphorical language on your part, considering you have never met me in person.

Insults are simply insults. Ad hominen is what you and Robin have done here in this thread. My use of the word physical was deliberate, but don't let that stop you from continuing to try to obfuscate.