Wednesday, March 19, 2008

New poll on right, about our most right writer

He's opinionated. He's biased. Once a self-described Radical Republican, he now calls himself a conservative libertarian. Is Glen Maganzini insane?
One "igitur" thinks so. Here's his argument...

Glen is representing a poor version of a Republican. You have Republicans who are religious or scientific. Then you have psychopaths. Glen is a psychopath, he does not rationalize thoughts and he fails to understand the true meaning behind various issues. He disagrees just to a) gain attention and b) express his psychotic nature and enforce it upon others. I do believe that he needs some mental help, as he only gives the backing of "sin" for why certain things should not happen. First off, who decides upon "sin." Do you do that, archbishop Glen? No, in fact, it is up to that person to decide if they are doing something that is good. For instance, with the subject of gays. Who says being gay is a "sin?" I, personally, disagree with the "lifestyle;" however, I use reasoning and basic logic to determine why I do not like that lifestyle. This including that it is not natural, it does not help with the production of other humans, and I feel that it is very strange for someone to be attracted to the same sex. Glen, therefore, should stfu about issues until he can come up with a meaningful argument on his case, one that has solid facts that can back up his opinion.

I rest my case.
And here's mine...
Alright, I wouldn't use "psychopath" to describe Glen. I think "ridiculous" is a more appropriate word. I knew his Sizing Up would fail, which is why I started writing Picking the President.
But remember, we live in Massachusetts. The most liberal state of the union. Just about everyone in this state supports gay rights.
I don't know how many Massachusetts residents realize that most Americans do not agree with us in that respect. The majority of people in the other states, believe it or not, agree with Glen's "psychotic" view that homosexuality is immoral, and that these people shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals. I'm well aware that Glen's not a typical Republican, and certainly not a typical Democrat either. He's his own man, and I respect that, even though we don't always see eye-to-eye. But yes, for continuing to bully this group, McCain and Paul deserve criticism.
Let's get a third opinion on the matter. P-Stick thinks Glen could "possibley [sic]" be out of his mind. That's all he has to say right now...he'll b.r.b. Anyway, vote in the poll on the right, and decide whether the Étudiant's own Glen Maganzini is just a regular Joe, or a schizophrenic bipolar neurotic psychopath, complete with pantie hose and clown makeup. If more people vote "Yes" than "No", Glen will be knocked out with a frying pan and thrown into the mental hospital, where crazies like him belong.

1 comment:

  1. Well actually the terms democrats and republicans are meaningless; Chomsky explains it better than me:
    But, anyway on to Glen, if he's crazy, than so am I. Oh, btw, most people I talk to either hate or don't understand gays and so I'm assuming they are against them having rights. I think they should be treated like heterosexuals and I think its ludicrous to think otherwise( no political affiliation needed).


Your comments are valued greatly. Please adhere to the decorum on the "First time here?" page. Comments that are in violation of any of the rules will be deleted without notice.

3/11 Update - No Moderation

*Non-anonymous commenting is preferred to avoid mix-ups. Anonymous comments are, at the behest of management, more likely to be deleted than non-anonymous comments.