Randy Haddock

My name is Randy.

I live in Brooklyn.

This is my personal page.

Email: ranhaddock at gmail dot com

Have a pretty day.


twitstamp.com

19Aug2009

A prime example of liberal "tolerance and open-mindedness"

biteofpythias:

please stop bringing randyhaddock back into my dashboard. pretty please. i’m all for debate with people who see the world differently, but in the absence of rational thought and openness to reality it get borings and frustrating. and fast.

i still struggle to understand a folk-singer who doesn’t think the little guy needs a hand once in awhile…

I’ve seen this biteofpythias person write about me a few times in the past. His rants are always the same whiny drivel — he never actually refutes any of my points, but merely offers the same lame ad hominem attacks. He always expresses concern over the treasured purity of his dashboard, and how unbearable it is to read my posts via reblogs. He always exhorts the reblogger to keep his dashboard free from my posts. Who wants to be bothered by those pesky opposing views, right? I usually follow the first rule of the Internet and ignore the trolls. But at this point I am just extremely curious as to what this dude’s deal is. Or maybe not, I know exactly what this dude’s deal is.

More than once he’s wondered how a right-leaning musician who’s into folk music, such as myself, could possibly be a non-lefty. Aside from the absurdity of such inquiry, I’m left wondering if collectivists are really that unable to accept the notion that not all people will perfectly fit their well-defined stereotypes. I’m a Puerto Rican, folk/country blues lovin’, unabashed capitalist, pro-profit, pro-business, free market lovin’ conservative who opposes illegal immigration, supports our military, believes in small government and fiscal responsibility, is suspicious of any government handout, staunchly opposes affirmative action, supports gay marriage, opposes abortion, despises unions, and believes that the only thing that defines individuals are individuals themselves. My race doesn’t define me, rest assured a musical interest won’t define me either.

The above post is pretty representative of all the previous posts made by this person.They consist of pleading the reblogger not to do it anymore, complaining about his precious dashboard, and throwing a few personal attacks — mainly my alleged lack of reason. Notice how he never actually goes into the why. He never actually backs up his inane remarks.

And you know why? Because this fella right here, like many other lefties, simply do not put up with diversity of opinion. They spend their days parading around and celebrating their self-described tolerance when they are among the most intolerant people I have seen. An opposing view makes their blood boil, it gets their hearts pumping, their eyes rolling with utter contempt, and the only recourse are personal attacks completely bereft of substance.

Notice he says he’s “all for debate with people who see the world differently, but in the absence of rational thought and openness to reality it get[s] borings[sic] and frustrating” Really? Is that an accurate assessment? Has this person shown to be open for debate? Does he really accept people who view the world differently? Which part of my posts which he’s complained about have been devoid of logic or reasoning? Which post shows I am somehow detached from reality? What did I say exactly that was irrational?  I’ll never know because he, like many others, seem to think that reason and logic = agreeing with me. He, like many others, has no intention to engage those who view the world different than he does. He, like many others, do not accept that people are different and have different ideas. He, like many others, feels that as long as they tolerate someone’s race and sexual orientation, they’re a-OK in the tolerance department, and it’s OK to be bigoted towards those who are ideologically different.

You, sir, are a severely close-minded, grade A bigot.

Alright, I promise to try my best to not break the cardinal rule of the Internet and not engage a troll again.

Comment

11May2009

[Wanda Sykes] recently proclaimed during the California Prop. 8 debate that “Everybody that knows me personally, they know I’m gay … Now, I gotta get in their face. I’m proud to be a woman. I’m proud to be a black woman, and I’m proud to be gay.”

Well, apparently she’s not so proud to be gay. Because when given the opportunity to make jokes about the nation’s leading proponent of opposite-sex marriage, President Barack Obama, she said precisely nothing. Instead, she chose to gently stroke his ego with jokes about his pecs, his dog, and his basketball skills.

Not a single joke about Dan Choi, the first gay Arabic linguist fired by Barack Obama under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Not a single joke about Obama’s interracially married parents and his refusal to stump for homosexual marriage. Sykes pledged to “get in their face” about gay marriage, but refused to get in the face of the most powerful man on earth about it. Instead, she chose to go after Rush Limbaugh and oxycontin - a choice for which she will surely be praised by the leftist media.



Ben Shapiro » Wanda Sykes’ Gutless Performance

Comment

22Apr2009

Why do so many refuse to acknowledge the legitimate objections some people have to state recognition of gay marriage and hesitate to challenge them on the level of ideas? Why do they resort to name-calling as a means of discourse?

Their preference for slurring gay marriage opponents parallels the way they and their peers respond to the Tea Parties. Instead of listening to their adversaries’ arguments and acknowledging the sincerity of their concerns, they treat them as a bully treats the defenseless kid on the playground.

They think they can get away with it because the MSM encourages their insults. And doesn’t hold them to account for their mean-spirited attempts to demean their adversaries.

Our society could gain by a serious discussion of gay marriage. Gay people in particular would benefit from such a conversation. Yet, the supposed advocates of this change would rather score points in some imaginary contest with conservatives than make a point about the social benefits of extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.



Gay Patriot » Name-calling: the supposedly smart set’s preferred means to respond to gay marriage opponents and others offering a politically incorrect point of view

Listen, I purposely rarely ever talk about gay marriage on this blog as I have very mixed feelings about it. I tend to be more sympathetic towards a more traditional view of marriage, but by no means do I have a firm stance on it. I hate to admit it but I simply do not have a set opinion on the gay marriage issue. For someone as opinionated as me, this is a very unsettling thing. I don’t like being a mushy, lukewarm type of guy but I refuse to have an opinion just for the sake of it. I thought I knew but I admit that at this point, I just don’t know. I am fiercely passionate about issues such as illegal immigration and abortion. I am all for having healthy debate about said issues but it is highly, highly unlikely that my mind will be changed. However, when it comes to gay marriage I am very much open to it but remain unconvinced.

And this is where my grievances begin with some gay marriage proponents and the reason why I posted the above quote. It’s not so much the issue itself, it’s the methodology used to promote it. For the most part, the rhetoric I’ve heard from the pro gay marriage folks has been, well, ugly. Very, very ugly. As soon as someone stands up and expresses an objection to gay marriage, the attacks that are thrown at them are vicious, belittling, and plain intolerant. And it’s a shame because I suspect many conservatives feel the same way I do when it comes to gay marriage: they’re skeptical of both sides but are willing to listen and perhaps find a conviction they can stand by.

So I go to one side and I hear about the negative consequences of legalizing gay marriage; I hear about the ramifications it would have on the institution of marriage; I hear how, under equal protection, marriage would then have to be open to all sorts of other arrangements outside of the one man/one woman combination; I hear the religious reasons for it; I hear about the social impact it will have on children; I hear pretty much well-reasoned and calm arguments against gay marriage.

And I say, “OK, cool, let’s see what the other side has to say.” And when I get there and I express even a doubt about gay marriage, all I hear is “You bigot!”, “You backwards hateful redneck!”, “How can you not be for equality? What’s the matter with you?”, “You’re so insensitive!”, “You religious zealot!”, “You crazy homophobe wingnut, keep your stupid beliefs away from me!”, and so on and so on. And, yea, what am I left to do but be immediately turned off by the gutter contempt this side has for those who feel even remotely different from them? So, I walk away.

Of course, there are plenty of reasonable people in favor of gay marriage, but they are not the dominant voice of the movement. People like those activists who targeted private citizens back when Prop 8 passed, Perez Hilton, Jon Stewart, and Margaret Cho (to name just a few) hurt the cause of gay marriage. Civility and reason are not tactics that they use. Their aim is to ridicule and humiliate those who differ in opinion, and it seems that this way of doing business has spread like wildfire among a vast amount of gay marriage supporters. It doesn’t persuade, it isolates.

Comment

24Nov2008

Comment

18Nov2008
Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion… you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they’re the opposite, of what you’re taught in Sunday school.

Fox News contributor and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich during an interview on the O’Reilly Factor. (via notable) (via rodmitch)

I remember when he said this and thought he was right on point. I really hope Gingrich changes his mind about not running for the RNC chairmanship and goes for it. Bonus points for this quote coming via Media Matters. Gotta love it!

NOTE: I have changed my views since then. I now fully support gay marriage. I do, however, believe there are people in this country who try to impose their will and views rather than persuade others. I believe people who oppose gay marriage can be persuaded, and it is essential for the debate around this matter to remain civil and respectful. Part of that includes not demonizing those who oppose gay marriage.

Comment

5Nov2008

FYI Randy...

whatcriscilikes:

Although Obama is officially opposed to same-sex marriage, he does say in his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope that:

“It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided…and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history.”

He also voted AGAINST the 2006 Marriage Protection Amendment which proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would ban gay marriage.

xoxoxo

Then, are you accusing Obama of pandering?  Being everything to everyone?  That is a scary, scary thing to do in politics.  But I believe Obama to be genuine on this matter.  I certainly hope he does not flip-flop the way he so consistently has in the past.

We’re gonna have to agree to disagree on this point… which is a beautiful thing IMHO. 

Rock on.

NOTE: I have changed my views on this matter. I now fully support same-sex marriage.

Comment

ARCHIVE RSS RANDOM POST MOBILEPOWERED BY TUMBLR