Thoughts on your thoughts

Post #183,231 by bepatient 11/6/04 11:21:42 AM Reply	Thoughts on your thoughts And Rightwing Christians where probably the biggest factor. The vast majority of people rated Bush at less then 50% performance wise in every rating. But many still voted for Bush because they considered him the "moral" canidate. And the quotes around moral are very significant here. These are not people that are interested in real morals or justice, rather they are afraid that gay people might be treated as normal human beings. This is obviously a very strong issue for Republicans right now, and will remain so for several elections. It will fade eventually, but that is a time span likely to be measured in generations. ... The Democrats need to find a way to attack the impression many people have that the Republicans are "God's party." They need to get some preachers (white evangelicals) to speak about this around the country. If the Republicans can cement this relation, it could be all over. This country could end up in a death spiral heading towards a theocracy. Wanna get rid of that impression? Get rid of the disdain in which you use "God" and "Christian" in your statements. Phrases like "death spiral to a theocracy" aren't going to endear you to alot of folks in this country. Some will take it as it comes. About half will never want to be associated with you or your beliefs...EVER...and will vote for a schmuck to prove it. I'm not a particularly religious person. However, even I have started to be offended by the attitudes that are prevalent in some "liberal" organizations that are strongly supported by the democratic party and/or affiliated with them as well...at least in the minds of the voters. Having black leaders meet with violent criminals and talk about the injustice of their incarceration after they killed police officers and/or went on rampages will not impress middle America about your values. Opposing bans on partial birth becasue of a "slippery slope" argument will cause you problems as well. And the clincher against Kerry, still, has nothing to do with people being "afraid" of gays..its the flip side of that...the "over-reaction" as it were. Same sex unions being given equal legal protection...or "I support gay marriage". Which one plays better? Which one do you think would be more (ugh...) politically correct (ouch...but I had to say it)? Just some thoughts. I think this election was more about pushing back than about selecting GW. I think the Democrats...by embracing Mike Moore and Jesse and the ACLU et al are >really< pissing off better than half of the people. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,232 by JayMehaffey 11/6/04 11:43:22 AM Reply	It's always a tough call Wanna get rid of that impression? Get rid of the disdain in which you use "God" and "Christian" in your statements. Phrases like "death spiral to a theocracy" aren't going to endear you to alot of folks in this country. Some will take it as it comes. About half will never want to be associated with you or your beliefs...EVER...and will vote for a schmuck to prove it. The distain was entirly in your mind. And is rather reflective of exactly what I'm talking about. My dislike is reserved for the small minority of Christians that are both radical and stupid about their beliefs. But there are far to many Christian Americans who reflexivly jump in to defend that small group, even if they disagree with them on all major issues. They percive any attack on Fundamentalists as an attack on all Christians. Same sex unions being given equal legal protection...or "I support gay marriage". Which one plays better? Which one do you think would be more (ugh...) politically correct (ouch...but I had to say it)? That is the presses fault more then anything. It was the Republicans that continously brought up that issue and cast the Democrats as supporting gay marriage. The Democrats have done everything you ask, moderating their posistion down to letting states decide and backing civil unions. But they still get hammered for being pro-gay. Just some thoughts. I think this election was more about pushing back than about selecting GW. I think the Democrats...by embracing Mike Moore and Jesse and the ACLU et al are >really< pissing off better than half of the people. It's always a tough call when your forced between taking a correct but unpopular posistion or selling out for a chance to win the election. But in the end I would rather go down fighting for what is right then cave on the major issues. Jay
Post #183,233 by daemon 11/6/04 11:45:48 AM Reply	backing, moore and aclu is fighting for what is right? 2 opportunistic assholes who never saw a buck that didnt belong to them and a good organization, perhaps thats your problem, the wheat and chaff thingy regards, daemon that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
Post #183,249 by bepatient 11/6/04 1:42:54 PM Reply	Wow. "death spiral into theocracy" no negative connotation there...in the same group of thoughts with other anti-christian statements. But the disdain is all in >my< head. And you need to listen to your politicians more. Its a simple phrase-ology. Same-sex union versus gay marriage. Blame it on the press if you want. I'm telling you what I think needs to be done. Your reaction leads me to think it won't be done anytime soon. And as for "selling out" versus "fighting for what is right". You go ahead and think what you want. If you think that they are right...then you will continue to have the problem that you are trying to figure out. IT is a culture gap about which you appear unwilling to learn. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,250 by JayMehaffey 11/6/04 1:55:10 PM Reply	Re: Wow. "death spiral into theocracy" no negative connotation there...in the same group of thoughts with other anti-christian statements. But the disdain is all in >my< head. Of course there is a huge negative connotation to theocracy, but you where the one that thought I was trying to paint all Christians with that phrase. And you need to listen to your politicians more. Its a simple phrase-ology. Same-sex union versus gay marriage. Blame it on the press if you want. I'm telling you what I think needs to be done. Your reaction leads me to think it won't be done anytime soon. Except of course they are not the same thing. Civil unions implies only a legal right, marriage implies a moral and/or religious right. There is nothing wrong with putting the best possible light on a posistion. But I won't play the game of calling things what they are not to make them sound better. And as for "selling out" versus "fighting for what is right". You go ahead and think what you want. If you think that they are right...then you will continue to have the problem that you are trying to figure out. IT is a culture gap about which you appear unwilling to learn. I understand the culture gap quite well. I'm just not sure what to do about it. I will no more cave in on gay equality today then I would on black equality 30 years go. People try to cast the issue if those two things are different (any an amazing number of african-american preachers fall into that camp) but it is the same bigotry passing as religious belief that is trying to block gay marriage now that was blocking interracial marriage then. Jay
Post #183,252 by bepatient 11/6/04 2:49:16 PM Reply	"so what" about the gay issue. Its not the problem. Quit focusing on it as the problem. Pass >civil union< legislation. You will get the equality you want. Nobody really has a problem with that. Marriage is a religious institution...SO AVOID IT. Do NOT say you support "gay marriage". Because the church's view is that it CANNOT EXIST. Do not allow wards of the state to marry same sex couples. The battle is about legal rights...keep it there. However, those fighting the battle want to take it further than that...making public spectacle of "marriage ceremony" etc. Also, you have the ACLU leaders meeting with violent criminals and in some cases (mumia comes to mind) saying that these criminals should be freed. You have democratic leadership and hollywood types associating with these causes without actually knowing anything about them (Mike Farrel comes to mind). These are free associations. The war protests ended up in some cases hijacked by these organizations. It gave the opposition ammunition to say they were driven by "communists" and other fringe elements. But its all ok becasue you are fighting for what is "right" (tm). Unfortunately for you it is only >your version< of what is right. What I am trying to tell you is that better than half of everyone else does NOT share your opinion...and for you to gain political power you are going to have to come to grips with this. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,259 by ben_tilly 11/6/04 6:27:52 PM Reply	Really? According to [link\|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4496265/\|polls], about half the country doesn't want civil unions of gays either. And the people who are against it are more likely to turn out at the polls than the people who are for it. Of the 11 states that just banned gay marriage, 2 of them (Georgia and Ohio) banned gay civil unions as well. As for whether marriage is a primarily religious institution, we've disagreed on this before. I think that it is not. You know why I think that, I know why you think otherwise, and we each think that the other person is wrong. That isn't about to change. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,281 by admin 11/6/04 9:31:39 PM Reply	3 of them. Read the Michigan proposal a bit more closely. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #183,290 by daemon 11/6/04 11:25:17 PM Reply	why a "civil union" and lets ignore religo marital issues If something happens to my kids and MJ (G_d forbid!) I have a true friend for many years (who would help me hide the bodies) now why could I not have a will that names him sole executor and inheritor, give him a "general" power of attourney that specifically excludes any blood relation of mine to make decisions for me while I am alive and as executor and in my will excludes my blood relatives from exercising any control over my body or assets. This relationship is not sexual, simply people I trust. Its legal and I can do this Now why cant gay people do the same? The reason is simple, they want their union to have the same tax, and social acceptance as hetrosexual marriage. Its not about rights its about acceptance, you cannot legislate morality and you cannot legislate societal acceptance either. That is the major reason for the states to get out of the marriage bidness. regards, daemon that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
Post #183,446 by jb4 11/8/04 9:25:46 AM Reply	So when you have your second heart attack... ...is your gay partner going to be allowed so sit vigil by your bed in the ICU? NO. Why not? Becuase "only family is allowed in the ICU". No amount of general power of attorney is going to override that bit of provincialism. And as far as having the same tax arrangements as does a married couple, why shouldn't they? (And no, I'm not accusing you, daemon, of having a gay partner. That's the "collective" you.) jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #183,580 by daemon 11/8/04 5:33:02 PM Reply	sorry a general power of attourney puts you there bedside, In most General POA's medical is covered, you are the only one making decisions for the person. My friend I spoke about had one for his Granma with Alzenheimers, he called all the shots. Sure I dont mind the couple paying the marriage penalty, let them join the club. regards, daemon ps Im trying to cut down :-) on being accused that is that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
Post #183,481 by tuberculosis 11/8/04 12:51:47 PM Reply	Banning Gay Marriage (new thread) Created as new thread #183480 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=183480\|Banning Gay Marriage] "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
Post #183,262 by Andrew Grygus 11/6/04 6:38:05 PM Reply	The gay civil union issue is important . . . . . because when all states have banned gay mariage, the Republicans won't be able to use it any more to bring out the "moralists" vote - but they'll be able to run the thing all over again with the civil union issue. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #183,300 by drewk 11/7/04 12:33:18 AM Reply	That's exactly the problem Civil unions implies only a legal right, marriage implies a moral and/or religious right. It certainly does. That's why no one should try to get a gay marriage recognized by the sate. Marriage is a moral/religious concept. Of course, that also means that straight marriage shouldn't be recognized by the sate. You going to try to make that argument? You think maybe someone could get elected doing it? That's what Bill is saying. You may be right, but you can't get elected saying it. More than half the population likes their state-sanctified religious ceremony. If you argue in favor of gay marriage, they can't argue against you without saying their own marriage shouldn't be recognized by the state. So yes, gay marriage does threaten straight marriage. The difference is that while Kerry (and other democrats) are articulating (supporting) the legal rights issue, Bush (and other republicans) are articulating (opposing) the moral rights issue. While they may agree with each other on the two issues, the choice of which one to focus on says something meaningful to a lot of people. I've concluded that when the exit poll number showed people voted on a moral basis, they didn't mean that they approved of Bush's morals. They meant the liked that he based his positions on morality. Ask Ben sometime how evangelicals react when he expresses his beliefs. That he is in favor of most of the same things they support doesn't matter, if he doesn't do it out of religious conviction. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #183,568 by Arkadiy 11/8/04 5:07:42 PM Reply	"The distain was entirly in your mind. " First ten results from search of "christian" in mmoffitt's postings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am, frankly, frightened of the trend we see of Fundamentalist Christianity increasing its influence on the body politic. When I said "belief" I meant "religious belief/conviction". Which in the case of fundamentalist Christians, it is. I know you better than to think that you would actually advocate legislating fundamentalist Christian beliefs, but you're close to doing that here. So there, with all the Christian holiday cards was good ol' Karl. That's where Christians co-opted "The Chosen People" for themselves and took the moniker away from the Jews, right? And this isn't about "supremacy" - Feh! This is not what I'm speaking of. What I've been protesting is the content of the so-called sacred texts of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions. All of them call for atrocities to be commited against the heathens explicitly - and this, I point out, distinguishes them from, say, Taoism and Buddhism. This is not unique to Christian writings, that kind of text is present in all the so-called religious texts arising out of the ME. "A plain text reading". The only Christians I know (and I count among them most of the Christians here) that are both self-proclaimed Christians and decent human beings are the Christians who don't take too seriously the medieval superstitious tripe that comprises most of the Christian Bible. Does that help? In short, if you "read the Bible" without rejecting that which is vulgar, indecent and inhumane, then .... It was quite common for the South to quote the many passages in Christian handbooks (The Bible) about "slaves obeying their masters" as a justification for slavery Because, according to the Christian text, you should be beaten/killed for not doing as the Lord commands. If a Christian does not believe anyone should be condemned to hell, then that Christian is the type of Christian I spoke of earlier, the type of Christian that has rejected a part of the religious manual. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< -- This guy's ahead of his time! He's using quantum programming methods: in universes where invalid data is passed to this function, it does not return. Thus you are ensured that you will only have valid data after calling it. Optimally you'd destroy the universe on failure, but computers haven't quite advanced to that level yet. -- [link\|http://thedailywtf.com/archive/2004/10/26/2920.aspx\|The] Daily WTF
Post #183,581 by altmann 11/8/04 5:33:13 PM Reply	As was the post by mmoffitt to this thread. -- Chris Altmann
Post #183,721 by mmoffitt 11/9/04 8:59:19 AM Reply	I give up. I can't find my post in this thread. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
Post #183,723 by mmoffitt 11/9/04 9:02:00 AM Reply	How utterly Bolshevik of you. Apparently holding Jay responsible for my comments. HTF did I get dragged into this thread? bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
Post #183,738 by Arkadiy 11/9/04 9:49:20 AM Reply	Even though you may disagree, you're a poster-child left wingnut here. I know you call yourself a Communist, but in the mind of many others you're the left wing of Democratic party. I guess I should try the same trick on Ashton. OK, some of this stuff is him quoting others, but still: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Malpede is more than Stufflebeem. Locked within the general is Artaud himself, periodically breaking through the rigid facade in barked howls of anguish and astonishing rants on pain, feces, cruelty, the pornography of Christianity or the intense hunger pangs of both the starving and the overfed. Working with impressive deliberation, as if carefully choosing every word, Malpede creates a magnetic image of rational insanity that demands -- and rewards -- rapt, close attention. For my part, every time I attempt to contemplate God's will, I get a headache. Call it attention deity disorder. I am possessed of finite intelligence (Evangelical Christians would say very finite), while God is omnipotent, all-knowing and all seeing. To my mind, any finite being who attempts to divine the sweep of God's will is acting, as my great aunt Katherine would say, "awfully presumptuous." Greene's religious faith saturates his politics, but it's a long way from George W. Bush's Christian soldiering You are gonna take up the cudgel of poor taste! amidst the premeditated and incessant Language murder of this campaign? Is that sort of some kind of Christian thing? But we didn't (know), RFK died and Nixon happened - and now we gots Roveowitz == and the fuckers still get to call selves 'conservatives'! Obviously conservatives/'04 don't know any more about conservatism than the KKK 'Christians' knew the first thing about JC. (Corporate Christianity + Bizness) ethics It is entirely appropriate that a presumed-Avatar would be requested to 'allow' this ritual. I know zippo re the "oils" part, an apparent addition, perhaps (like so much else) just another Christian variant on very old practices. Myths recycle and Christianity's myths are unoriginal; preceded by oodles of examples (including crucifixion and "they came from the East") which the interested can discover about. Fundamentalist American Christian Imposed Peace Through War With Fundamentalist Islam \t 1st/Last of a species found! - Christian Conservative Comic! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Anyone else you care to try? Any more questions? -- This guy's ahead of his time! He's using quantum programming methods: in universes where invalid data is passed to this function, it does not return. Thus you are ensured that you will only have valid data after calling it. Optimally you'd destroy the universe on failure, but computers haven't quite advanced to that level yet. -- [link\|http://thedailywtf.com/archive/2004/10/26/2920.aspx\|The] Daily WTF
Post #183,759 by ben_tilly 11/9/04 12:01:38 PM Reply	Yeah, try me I'm an outspoken atheist who is definitely on the left wing and is firmly opposed to the religious right. I've never tried to hide either tendancy. What do you find for me? Curiously, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,786 by Arkadiy 11/9/04 2:27:57 PM Reply	Believe it or not but you're hardly a "liberal" in the swearword sense. You're not a typical left-winger, just like BePatient is not a typical right winger. "The Left", justly or not, is associated with people like mmoffitt and ashton. "The Right", correctly or not, is associated with marlowe. You really have no place on either edge. -- This guy's ahead of his time! He's using quantum programming methods: in universes where invalid data is passed to this function, it does not return. Thus you are ensured that you will only have valid data after calling it. Optimally you'd destroy the universe on failure, but computers haven't quite advanced to that level yet. -- [link\|http://thedailywtf.com/archive/2004/10/26/2920.aspx\|The] Daily WTF
Post #183,794 by ben_tilly 11/9/04 3:35:05 PM Reply	I find that hard to believe According to selectsmart I had a 100% agreement with Howard Dean's agenda. And the Deaniacs were the poster children in this election for the liberal agenda. Think about it. Against the Iraq invasion. For civil liberties. For gay civil unions. (He was only against gay marriage because he didn't think it was politically doable.) For expanded medical coverage. (He was only against universal health care because he didn't think it was politically doable.) Pro-choice. For financial discipline...by US standards this is the radical left! (By, say, Canadian standards it is mainstream and the "not politically doable" items there are "done and noncontroversial".) Yet I'm not your stereotype of a left-winger. I guess that Howard Dean wasn't either then... Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,804 by jake123 11/9/04 4:09:21 PM Reply	Welcome to the distorted view that the US has of itself the reality distortion field that has surrounded the US vis-a-vis people from Other Places has begun to affect themselves too. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #183,814 by Arkadiy 11/9/04 5:56:32 PM Reply	Two of your items pull you to the right: financial discipline and civil liberties. I wonder how you feel about affirmative action and immigration... OK, let's go for your quotes (I exclude teh ones from this thread) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How well do you know it? When boxley talked about Paul's role, you certainly didn't know what he was talking about well enough to recognize that he was talking about the same thing. That was even obvious to me - and I've never been inclined to Christianity nor have I ever studied the Bible! The Pilgrims came after 1600 years of Christian history. J.O.B. clearly falls in the latter class. Bitter satires tend to be enjoyed most by those who have considerable bitterness themselves. J.O.B. is no exception - I've found that it is appreciated most by people with some serious anger with Christianity. (Note that there is more anger towards Christianity than Christians - the hero of the story has beliefs that are truly a caricature of what Heinlein disliked. There is a passage where the causes that he worked for are enumerated. But he still can be the hero because he is fundamentally just another victim.) But even so it is clearly meant as fiction. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I interrupt the sequence because the trend is obvious. You and Ashton definitely belong to different classes when it comes to discussing Christianity. I leave it as an exercice to the reader to figure out which one is more associated with the Left Wing. I think that you tend to take yourself as a representative specimen of your group. You are not. Just because you're thoughtful and reasonable, does not mean that the whole group is like that. -- This guy's ahead of his time! He's using quantum programming methods: in universes where invalid data is passed to this function, it does not return. Thus you are ensured that you will only have valid data after calling it. Optimally you'd destroy the universe on failure, but computers haven't quite advanced to that level yet. -- [link\|http://thedailywtf.com/archive/2004/10/26/2920.aspx\|The] Daily WTF
Post #183,836 by Simon_Jester 11/9/04 8:01:56 PM Reply	Curious look why do you claim the right is for financial discipline and civil liberties? Even Reagan fought against financial displine (running the debt up) and civil liberties (hold federal funds hostage to raise the drinking age to 21).
Post #183,840 by Arkadiy 11/10/04 1:33:43 PM Reply	"In this town, people are what they are percieved to be" -- This guy's ahead of his time! He's using quantum programming methods: in universes where invalid data is passed to this function, it does not return. Thus you are ensured that you will only have valid data after calling it. Optimally you'd destroy the universe on failure, but computers haven't quite advanced to that level yet. -- [link\|http://thedailywtf.com/archive/2004/10/26/2920.aspx\|The] Daily WTF
Post #183,849 by ben_tilly 11/10/04 2:53:12 PM Reply	Perceived by whom? I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,850 by Arkadiy 11/10/04 2:56:43 PM Reply	Actually, I think I misquoted "In this town, we don't deal with people as they are, but as they are percieved to be" In our particular discussion, it's how "right" percieves "left" and vice versa. -- This guy's ahead of his time! He's using quantum programming methods: in universes where invalid data is passed to this function, it does not return. Thus you are ensured that you will only have valid data after calling it. Optimally you'd destroy the universe on failure, but computers haven't quite advanced to that level yet. -- [link\|http://thedailywtf.com/archive/2004/10/26/2920.aspx\|The] Daily WTF
Post #183,847 by ben_tilly 11/10/04 2:50:28 PM Reply	Civil liberties is a right-wing philosophy? I think that you'll find few people on the Left who are for the Patriot act, the ongoing erosion of the 4'th amendment, and many other key civil liberties positions. Certainly it is my impression that organizations like the ACLU are more often thought of as left-wing than right-wing. As for financial discipline, while the Right gives that lip service, in recent US history actual accomplishments have been delivered more consistently by people on the Left, like Clinton and Dean. At least one the federal level, the biggest fiscal disasters have been delivered by conservatives from Reagan on. Take the last Presidential election, who had the better track record for financial discipline, Bush or Kerry? As for how representative I am or am not, there is certainly a left-wing fringe out there that I'm not representative of. And most don't present their opinions as carefully as I do. But I believe myself to be fairly mainstream on the left. Certainly in discussions with aquaintances who are left-wing, my views tend to match theirs fairly well. And, as I said before, my views are a very close match to Howard Dean's, who represents a fairly large block of people. I certainly have no trouble naming other IWETHEY people whose views I would describe as being close to mine. I won't do so mainly because I don't want to drag them into this discussion. But several of you know who you are... Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,851 by Arkadiy 11/10/04 3:07:15 PM Reply	Two facts: 1) you and some of the rest of the crowd here have distinctly different tone WRT Christianity 2) you think you're a "mainstream left" That leads me to conclude that, at least in your opinion, the other kind is not "mainstream". Question: what do the other people I quoted think about being "mainstream"? Mmoffitt, is your style representative of most of the "left" crowd? Another question: whom do your opponents consider more representative? We heard from AnotherScott. Beep, care to answer? I personally think that most people in liberal circls are like you, but most noise coming from there is generated by the other kind. I have to constantly remind myself about this, though. Still another question: what is the perception of "right" on the left? We heard from deS with his "old-fashioned Montana(?) honesty". We heard from mmoffitt with "flat earthers". Any more? Person to person, both crowds mostly have decent people. The IQ of a crowd, however, is the lowest IQ in in it divided by the number of participants. Hence the perception problems. -- This guy's ahead of his time! He's using quantum programming methods: in universes where invalid data is passed to this function, it does not return. Thus you are ensured that you will only have valid data after calling it. Optimally you'd destroy the universe on failure, but computers haven't quite advanced to that level yet. -- [link\|http://thedailywtf.com/archive/2004/10/26/2920.aspx\|The] Daily WTF
Post #183,852 by bepatient 11/10/04 4:14:46 PM Reply	I've come to find... that the members of this group are hardly a representative sample of one position or another. The "typical liberal" or "typical conservative" are not here. We are all >extremely< atypical. ;-) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,853 by Silverlock 11/10/04 4:49:28 PM Reply	I think I have to agree The "typical liberal" or "typical conservative" are not here. Or anywhere. From those assigning the label, you will get a different interpretation of "typical" 11 times out of 10 opinions. ----------------------------------------- How do you convince a Washington Journalist that you're not slapping him in the face? Tell him you're not.
Post #183,855 by Arkadiy 11/10/04 5:26:50 PM Reply	"average programmer" :) -- This guy's ahead of his time! He's using quantum programming methods: in universes where invalid data is passed to this function, it does not return. Thus you are ensured that you will only have valid data after calling it. Optimally you'd destroy the universe on failure, but computers haven't quite advanced to that level yet. -- [link\|http://thedailywtf.com/archive/2004/10/26/2920.aspx\|The] Daily WTF
Post #183,881 by ben_tilly 11/11/04 11:56:48 AM Reply	Well there are multiple "right"s The perception of the current administration is as you might expect: they are arrogant, incompetent fascist bastards from the religious right. Feelings vascillate between fear that these yahoos are running the show, to shame that they represent us, to outrage at what they've chosen to do, to astonishment that people like this exist (and fool people)! More broadly I think that there is widespread understanding that there are multiple factions on the right wing. Feelings about people who are right-wing economically (like Milton Friedman) differ from feelings about the religious right (eg Ashcroft) differ from feelings about the neo-conservatives who've hijacked this administration (like Rumsfeld). But none of those feelings are very positive. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,763 by pwhysall 11/9/04 12:11:02 PM Reply	Did someone say howls? Beware the calumnificator! ooOOoo Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home]
Post #183,787 by Arkadiy 11/9/04 2:28:47 PM Reply	Huh? -- This guy's ahead of his time! He's using quantum programming methods: in universes where invalid data is passed to this function, it does not return. Thus you are ensured that you will only have valid data after calling it. Optimally you'd destroy the universe on failure, but computers haven't quite advanced to that level yet. -- [link\|http://thedailywtf.com/archive/2004/10/26/2920.aspx\|The] Daily WTF
Post #183,811 by pwhysall 11/9/04 5:17:08 PM Reply	Read me in my posts. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home]
Post #183,815 by Arkadiy 11/9/04 5:57:59 PM Reply	Oh, I see MM reference, I just don't get how it's connected with what I say. And, what is "ooOOoo"? -- This guy's ahead of his time! He's using quantum programming methods: in universes where invalid data is passed to this function, it does not return. Thus you are ensured that you will only have valid data after calling it. Optimally you'd destroy the universe on failure, but computers haven't quite advanced to that level yet. -- [link\|http://thedailywtf.com/archive/2004/10/26/2920.aspx\|The] Daily WTF
Post #183,818 by bepatient 11/9/04 6:04:16 PM Reply	MM's sig oooO0Oooo Read me in my posts. do not run with the calumniating yellow horde of wolves If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,910 by Ashton 11/12/04 2:57:45 AM Reply	Pure balderdash - language murder 1st Class and a perfect op. cit. for General Language Murder 101A / Remedial. Until there is a 'legend'/glossary-of-terms at IWE "delineating" what - - - - - - [all of us agree to mean! HERE] - - - - - - by such terms as, Left, Right, Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Reactionary, Liberal ... and the other {blab} words: [Let's not even try-for Liberty, Freedom, Security, Patriotism, TRUTH! -- OK?] Till then: You are squarely within Stuart Chase's DEFINITION of blab words usage. ie Meaningless Labels, Tags, often epithets - and all subject to the winds of daily trendy adjectives appended .. like 'Compassionate Conservative' and the useless rest. No two people mean The Same Thing. Imagine what you like, but it Is all projection on your part. What if I saw Jerry Foulwell, who says he's a Christian, then saw you saying ~ "I'm a Christian" -?- Foulwell == Arkadiy? (tell me you wouldn't be insulted). Then when you relate that list <--> to some automatic Party? political philosophy overall? {Sheesh} - wanna take on moral.. too? When language is corrupt, as I assert Ours now Is - special-words need to be Declared in advance, like in those cute other languages you daily use, with lots of ;;;; at the outset - since the traditional labels have become utterly meaningless.. except for parody or simply, invective. And where philosophy intermingles with an individual's metaphysical attitudes, you shall be walking across that [increasingly familiar '00 term] quagmire called ~ massive presumptuousness. [Это будет массивнейшая презумпция на вашей части] ? ie there is NO 'party' nor organized corporate 'religion' which comes very nearto my "views" of the maya / the daily illusions portrayed by various senses. (Maybe when Beep comes up with his list of "what I want to Conserve" and you decide what "compassionate" means in political terms: we may have the seed corn for the mentioned glossary.) PS It's easy to mock 'Christians' - no TWO of them 'believe' quite the Same Thing! -- and it is a palpable rarity when any ONE of them chastises ANOTHER for spewing hate-filled bigotry inJesus'nameAmen. And if these all ARE 'Christians' ?? What Does That Mean ?? Ashton, card-carrying member of the Anti-Hypocrite Party, should one ever exist, stark enough for simple bipeds to feign allegiance-to. Humankind cannot bear very much reality. -- TS Eliot
Post #184,081 by Arkadiy 11/15/04 10:07:01 AM Reply	The language got corrupted, the words have no menaing any longer, why the hell do you keep talking? Apparently, only you, yourself, can understand you hundred percent. The rest of us always get you wrong. "It's all projection on your part" (Oh, no, "please read me in my words". Now I am beginnig to get it, Peter). Yes, I would be insulted if you call me "foulwell". Guess what, every time you utter "Christian" with no qualifications and explanations, it's exactly what happens (or would have been happening, weren't I Jewish). And then you wonder why people call you "Mr. Binary". Somehow other people manage to get their ardent atheism and disdain for some forms of religion across without calling me Foulwell. Is language less corrupted for Ben Tilly? Do I get smarter all of a sudden when I read his posts? (well, if I don't it's not his fault) Ashton, if you wanted to call me "Foulwell", you got it very well. If you wanted to say something else, you failed. I know you're a decent person, in your innermost self. Heck, I know that about everyone on this board. When your writing does not sound decent, something is amiss. It may just be me. Then again, "The people have lost the confidence of the government; the government has decided to dissolve the people, and to appoint another one". -- This guy's ahead of his time! He's using quantum programming methods: in universes where invalid data is passed to this function, it does not return. Thus you are ensured that you will only have valid data after calling it. Optimally you'd destroy the universe on failure, but computers haven't quite advanced to that level yet. -- [link\|http://thedailywtf.com/archive/2004/10/26/2920.aspx\|The] Daily WTF
Post #184,146 by Ashton 11/15/04 6:46:41 PM 11/15/04 6:50:08 PM Reply	Miss the whole point about labelling, again? the.. What. If. I called you.. Totally, d0oD? Of course you aren't Christian (all n+1 varieties). You have so-stated. Nor do I imagine I 'know' what it means to you to be 'Jewish' - ethnicity? religious dogma? familial habit? All varieties of Jewish sects and their arguments interpreting the Torah? {Sheesh} at least I Know I don't know that which you stand-for, fall-from - because of some bloody Label-attached. Only can I infer from what you write - where you might 'stand' on some topic. It was an example of why the stupid labels fail, fer Moses' sake! 'Twas you who attached a few to moi. I read Ben's post re the different 'perceptions' and also categories of the 'right' - as a perfectly adequate exposition of why the labels are meaningless (without personal explanation). And I concur with Silverlock's assertion: none of us here! is 'typical' - in the vague sense that we imagine that "most people" - 'mean' them [??] fuzzy.. fuzzy.. So why do you persist in assigning such? Is their uselessness not yet demonstrated adequately? Most here have been exposed to a 'liberal' education and -by now- surely possess some small agenda: of things in the US' founding Principles, which each deems worthy of fighting to "conserve" and things apparently needing re-form -- all the personal reasons for each POV will vary as much as does a Life lived in this milieu! Left <--> Right labels are the most hopelessly useless in '04; comparisons with "bomb throwing Anarchists" or "Nazi State Corporatists" as extreme polarities? W.T.F. do such caricatures have to do with transmitting any useful information by or about any one of us 'here' - or for that matter, amidst the 300M? (Despising Neoconmen and all who sail in Her, does not a Democrat-party affiliate make). Nor does ab=ba apply in human matters. As one who is Conservative (of the US Constitution) and deems that the present cabal has a quite different list it wants to substitute: then, Am I Not "a Conservative"? Is it "conservative" to wish to replace governmental control of the country with - control exercised by Corporate outright purchase of the 'peoples' representatives? Is opposing that actuality, then: 'left' or 'right' vis a vis The Constitution? Need another dozen examples? QED - it's bloody language murder. {sheesh}² Yes, I would be insulted if you call me "foulwell". Guess what, every time you utter "Christian" with no qualifications and explanations, it's exactly what happens (or would have been happening, weren't I Jewish). And then you wonder why people call you "Mr. Binary". 'Christians' self-identify regularly, completely without indication of the particular sub-set of selected material and interpretation, much of those choices being contradictory 'Beliefs' <--> to those of Other 'Christians' [!] cf. >THIS WHOLE CAMPAIGN< Perhaps we need a new '04 Label re Evangelicals? / Revelations facilitators? / Persons advocating a Fundamentalist Theocracy to replace the US Constitution? (3 separate ones, or will one New Label suffice?) These are, the numbers suggest: a significant voter bloc, so it is not absurd to assign a Party Name - so shall it be: Republicans, Democrats, Apolcalypse-Nextians? or ____ When someone calls self a 'Christian', I tend to assign a very simple meaning: "OK, this one likely goes to a church of some kind". (And that too, is apt to be wrong, sometimes). WTF do you think, "I am a Christian MEANS !? Do you impute a whole list of things? If you do.. * or a Jew?! Mr. Binary, eh? Actually: hadn't wondered any such thing about "my perception" [and.. by Whom?]; but if you say so.. Have you nothing orthogonal to Black/White Yes/No - even whilst trying for a label about "a one's attitude towards 'binary thinking'"? ;-) Is that meta-disinformation or What? I Who Be, Mr. Analogue Screw Yes/No. Edit typo. Edited by Ashton Nov. 15, 2004, 06:50:08 PM EST Expand All History
Post #184,777 by mmoffitt 11/22/04 11:33:20 AM Reply	You "know I call myself a Communist"? How? bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
Post #184,785 by Arkadiy 11/22/04 11:55:33 AM Reply	I seem to remeber reading that in your posts... If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies. What do you call yourself? -- This guy's ahead of his time! He's using quantum programming methods: in universes where invalid data is passed to this function, it does not return. Thus you are ensured that you will only have valid data after calling it. Optimally you'd destroy the universe on failure, but computers haven't quite advanced to that level yet. -- [link\|http://thedailywtf.com/archive/2004/10/26/2920.aspx\|The] Daily WTF
Post #184,792 by mmoffitt 11/22/04 12:16:32 PM Reply	Confused. :-) I actually did say that, tongue in cheek, in a post a couple of years ago, something like , "So I guess that makes me a communist ;-)" or something like that. I don't usually label myself, but I do believe a good deal of what I have read from Marx and Engells. The western connotation of the word "communist" is, of course, corrupted to the point that I don't think even Marx would recognize what it means. You can call me a Marxist, I guess - if you must call me something. But that is not what I am. Socialist might be more appropriate, but as Ashton has pointed out, these labels are meaningless. Perhaps the best label is "anti-Corporatist". My problem with Capitalism is that it nurtures the worst in all of us. "I got mine - you go get yours" is the pervasive, I'd argue hostile, emotion that pervades, at the least US, capitalist thought. If there were an honest religious tenet that was expressed by US capitalists, it would read something (exactly?) like this: "Do unto others before they do unto you." bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
Post #185,003 by daemon 11/25/04 12:09:04 AM Reply	he is an OP communist :-) like the rest of us it works well for Other People, just dont apply those rules to me :-). Just Like Beep is an OP capitalist regards, daemon that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE clearwater highschool marching band [link\|http://www.chstornadoband.org/\|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]
Post #184,786 by broomberg 11/22/04 11:55:59 AM Reply	Uh, here [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=133291\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=133291] Of course, you were never a really good one, but you seemed to try.
Post #184,790 by mmoffitt 11/22/04 12:07:30 PM Reply	I'd be a communist, but I'm not good enough. Close.... bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
Post #184,791 by Arkadiy 11/22/04 12:15:30 PM Reply	A good communits is a dead communist Almost serious: only a corpse can possess the required amount of self-denial and altruism. -- This guy's ahead of his time! He's using quantum programming methods: in universes where invalid data is passed to this function, it does not return. Thus you are ensured that you will only have valid data after calling it. Optimally you'd destroy the universe on failure, but computers haven't quite advanced to that level yet. -- [link\|http://thedailywtf.com/archive/2004/10/26/2920.aspx\|The] Daily WTF
Post #184,794 by mmoffitt 11/22/04 12:19:39 PM Reply	That sounds like what I heard in church as a tot. There's the disconnect for me with religion. All that born out of sin, I'm unworthy, pray for forgivenss for ... living crap. I have too much faith in man to be party to any organized religion. Left to his own uncorrupted devices, I believe we are, unless mentally ill, by our nature an gregarious, altruistic species on the whole. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
Post #183,251 by ben_tilly 11/6/04 2:14:50 PM Reply	You haven't been paying attention, have you? Same sex unions being given equal legal protection...or "I support gay marriage". Which one plays better? Which one do you think would be more (ugh...) politically correct (ouch...but I had to say it)? A pop quiz just for you. Which candidate was against gay marriage? Which candidate was for same sex unions? Since you missed it, the answer is both! The only difference in their positions is that Bush is for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage while Kerry is not. Don't believe me? Try to dig up a quote from Kerry supporting gay marriage? Go to the debates and see what Kerry and Edwards both said about it. "Marriage is between a man and a woman." Sound familiar? Not a big difference in reality. But the difference in perception was that Kerry was for gays and Bush was against them. In fact the gap was big enough that you got it wrong? How do you address the fact that people aren't paying attention and don't know what you do and don't stand for? Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,253 by bepatient 11/6/04 2:54:52 PM Reply	Yes, I have. I was paying attention when they mayor of SF was marrying folks on the front steps. I was watching in Mass. where the same thing was happening. Under what party flag did those politicians fly. My point is that this issue brough support of PARTY. Not candidate. Something that you all don't seem to realize. George Bush didn't win. The Democrats lost. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,260 by ben_tilly 11/6/04 6:33:37 PM Reply	That's an impossible standard to reach The Democratic Party is against gay marriage. The candidates for President and Vice-President are against gay marriage. Yet because the people who are for gay marriage are mostly Democratic, you're going to blast the Democrats for being stupid politically. I've got news for you. As long as the Republicans demonstrate themselves to be far more hostile to gays than Democrats, the gays are going to generally go Democrat. And they care more about their issue than anything else, so they'll keep on raising the issue. But they no more represent the Democratic party than the fruitcakes who don't want Evolution taught represent the Republican party. Now did you have any useful suggestions that might actually happen? I thought not. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,269 by bepatient 11/6/04 7:44:07 PM Reply	Whatever. If you want to continue to miss the point, then you can. This is about perception. And as long as the democratic party continues to allow itself to be perceived this way, they are going to have problems. If you want to sit here and tell me I'm fucked up for pointing my views of the problem to you...so be it. The gay issue is only one of the points. I personally support equal legal rights. Moore and his ilk spewing hate 24/7 for 12 months was another. The associations I mentioned before are another. The lack of a good candidate is another. Whoever said Lieberman was a good candidate was on crack. Whoever thinks Hillary in 08 is on crack too. But, since you seem to be associating this with my actual view...I'll quit now. It ain't worth it to me. I don't particularly give a shit...because in addition to all these problems...it doesn't appear they have any candidates to run out either. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,321 by ben_tilly 11/7/04 4:33:49 AM Reply	No, YOU missed the point This is about perception. And as long as the democratic party continues to allow itself to be perceived this way, they are going to have problems. How is the Democratic party to reverse that? Concrete suggestions only, please. Go around telling America that it is not allowed to misjudge the Democratic party? That's going to work really well. Not. Gay marriage was not the party platform. Gay marriage was not the candidate's platform. Both party and platform said that very clearly. Yet gay marriage is what was perceived. In case you didn't notice, the Democrats are not in complete control of how they are perceived. In particular the Republicans are doing their best to make sure that the Democrats will be perceived in a particular way. Furthermore there are fringe elements who associate themselves with the Democratic party that will not behave like everyone else in the party wants. Which gives Rove et al enough ammunition to start spinning no matter what the party tries to do. Now suppose that you were in John Kerry's position. What would you do differently to make sure that your message was heard? The key word is differently. If you suggest doing things that he already did - for instance coming out for civil unions, not gay marriage - then I'm going to mock you. With cause. Regards, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,342 by Another Scott 11/7/04 10:27:10 AM Reply	They can try what Tony Blair did. Voila! The New Democratic Party. Oh wait, it already exists and is called the [link\|http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=86\|Democratic Leadership Council]. They ask [link\|http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253002\|What Happened?]: The third "trust gap" that hurt Democrats was another hardy perennial: values and culture. And here the evidence of a Democratic handicap is overwhelming. As every exit poll has shown, "moral values" was the number one concern of voters on November 2 -- more than terrorism, Iraq, the economy, health care, education, or anything else. And among voters citing "moral values" as their top concern, Democrats got clobbered. Overcoming the cultural trust gap is not just a matter of carefully calibrating positions on specific issues like guns, abortion, or this year's big wedge issue, gay marriage. Indeed, John Kerry did not repeat Al Gore's mistake of leading with his chin on such issues. The problem is that many millions of voters simply do not believe that Democrats take their cultural fears and resentments seriously, and that Republicans do. As in so many recent elections, some Democrats believed they could trump the cultural concerns of middle-class families through economic appeals, asking voters to look to their pocket-books rather than their hearts when entering the polling place. If there was ever an election where this should have worked, it was this one, and it didn't. [...] There's only so much Kerry could do to change perceptions about him. He wasn't the best candidate the Democrats could run this year. If they wanted a Senate candidate, [link\|http://durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/About/about.htm\|Dick Durbin] from Illinois might have been a better choice (though of course he wasn't running). From the House, I don't know. Nobody jumps out at me, maybe [link\|http://www.house.gov/georgemiller/bio.html\|George Miller] from California. But he wasn't running either. A governor? Maybe [link\|http://www.governor.state.ia.us/bios/vilsack_bio.html\|Tom Vilsack] from Iowa. Maybe a recent democratic governor. The Democrats needed someone who could point to their record on these morals/values issues if they wanted to combat Republican pictures of them. Kerry didn't do that well at all. Howard Dean was a strong candidate in many ways, but much of the party establishment feared him. He was stronger than Kerry in some respects - he had a progressive record but also had a record of accomplishment in health care, budgets, etc. that Kerry didn't have. He was weaker in others - he had almost no experience with contested elections. But he could actually articulate what he believed. As Seth Myers said in an SNL [link\|http://www.museworld.com/archives/001529.html\|sketch] where he played Kerry in the first debate: My opponent would like you to believe that I\ufffdve changed my position on the war. The fact is I have one position, and one position only. Was Saddam a threat? Yes. I\ufffdve said so since day one. What his regime a danger to the security of the U.S.? Of course not. Did he deserve to be removed? You bet. Was it the right action to remove him from power? No way. Was he in possession of weapons of mass destruction? Absolutely. Did he possess these weapons? No, he did not. And that has always been my position. and he [link\|http://stopstop.blogspot.com/2004/10/snl-review.html\|continues]: The fact is that I have consistently supported the war in front of pro-war audiences and condemned the war while speaking to groups that oppose it. That is not flip flopping, that is pandering and Americans deserve a president that knows the difference. Like it or not, Kerry made it easy to be painted that way. In short, you and BP both make good points. IMO, Kerry was going to have a very difficult time no matter what the circumstances were because he was a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts. He could have done better, though, in running his campaign and articulating his positions. Cheers, Scott.
Post #183,349 by bepatient 11/7/04 11:13:48 AM Reply	Oh, somehow I don't think so. One Suggestion Don't take the "fringe element" (or whatever you call it) and sit it next to a former President (well respected at that) at the Convention. They were certainly in control of that. What utter fucking brilliance it was to put him there. NOT. Gay marriage was but one part of the problem. Its not my fault you aren't reading my posts. But since you want to focus there...lets go back to the gay issue...and I believed then as now that it would bite them in the ass...SUGGESTION: don't stretch in public debate to call out Cheney's daughter as a lesbian. Both the VEEP candidate and the real candidate FAILED MISERABLY when presented those questions in the debates. They used that time to take (what were widely perceived as) shots at the candidate instead of ANSWERING THE QUESTION AND STATING THEIR POSITION CLEARLY. Whether >you< think so or not...the fact that it became an issue for 2 weeks after should tell you EVERYONE ELSE did. Go ahead and mock me. I don't think you quite realize just how little I give a shit. It will settle right in another one of the problems that the party has. Goes something like this..."Noone could ever POSSIBLY think these things...because I don't...and that makes >them< WRONG. I think I'll make a "documentary" about it and/or taunt you incessantly for being a middle american, too stupid to vote, hick-assed country bumpkin." So. Shall we? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,465 by ben_tilly 11/8/04 11:16:43 AM Reply	Yes, let's go back to the gay issue You seem to be under a delusion that America understood what they heard in the debates. Did you miss [link\|http://www.mtsusurveygroup.org/mtpoll/f2004/MTSUPoll_Election_Report.htm\|http://www.mtsusurve...ection_Report.htm] or else just miss its importance? Here is a critical section: But Tennesseans not all that issue savvy Despite the impression the above findings might give, a close look at five domestic agenda items suggests that Tennesseans as a group hardly qualify as well-informed, ideologically consistent policy wonks. For example, only about half of Tennessee adults can accurately name Kerry as the candidate who supports rescinding the recent federal income tax cuts for people earning over $200,000 a year. About a quarter (23%) incorrectly attributed the proposal to Bush, and 27% admit they don\ufffdt know which candidate supports the measure. Similarly, only about half (50%) rightly name Bush as the candidate who favors giving parents tax-funded vouchers to help pay private or religious school tuition. Thirteen percent attribute the plan to Kerry, who actually opposes it. Over a third (37%) admit they don\ufffdt know. Knowledge levels are even lower on the other three issues. Well under half (42%) are aware that Bush wants to let younger workers put some of their Social Security withholdings into their own personal retirement accounts. Nineteen percent incorrectly think Kerry supports the measure, and 40% say they don\ufffdt know one way or the other. Just over a quarter (28%) rightly name Bush as the candidate who supports giving needy people tax breaks that would help buy health insurance from private companies. Thirty percent inaccurately name Kerry as the measure\ufffds proponent, and 41% admit not knowing. Finally, just 39% know that Kerry advocates requiring plants and factories to add new pollution control equipment when they make upgrades. Fifteen percent wrongly attribute the policy to Bush, and 45% don\ufffdt know. Both candidates spent a lot of energy differentiating themselves on that issue. Yet average voters remain blissfully unaware of what their real positions are. For the record, I watched the debate and thought that Kerry and Edwards stated their position clearly. Both said that they thought that marriage was between a man and a woman. However marriage is a state issue, and it isn't the business of the federal government to regulate it. Besides no state is bound to accept any other state's definition of marriage. If you want to say that they should have had a simpler position I'll agree. But what they had was clearly stated. Furthermore the fact that they couldn't even get across the fact that Kerry was for rolling back tax cuts on rich folks while Bush was against it suggests that America simply wasn't paying attention. If something repeated that often didn't get through, the answers to one question each in the debates didn't have a hope in hell of making it. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,469 by bepatient 11/8/04 11:27:31 AM Reply	Priceless. He could have stated his position differently. Without taking the perceived shot at the candidate. Edwards could have done this also. It would have had a better chance of being heard and remembered. Instead, people remembered him taking a shot at Cheney. And you are just now figuring that people in Tennessee are uninformed? Do you have the same information for South Central LA voters or is this just another attempt to say anyone in a red state is an idiot? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,470 by ben_tilly 11/8/04 11:37:20 AM Reply	Suggestion Several points. I see no reason to believe that people in TN are more or less informed than anywhere else. That just happens to be the only poll that I have on how well informed the general electorate was on the candidates positions. Even Karl Rove could be proud of how you spun that one into a perceived insult where none was meant. People didn't generally just "remember" the debate that way. At least not unassisted. Look back to what I said a couple of posts ago about the Republicans trying to spin how the Democrats are perceived. (And vice versa of course. But Karl Rove is the master.) It is easy to say that the position could have been stated differently. It is far harder to come up with said statement. Either put up or shut up. How would you have said it, since you think it is so easy to say? Regards, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,471 by jake123 11/8/04 11:44:17 AM Reply	How I would've put it Marriage is a state's rights issue; I'm not going to try to influence them as it would be improper of me to do so. FWIW, I'm married to a woman. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #183,473 by ben_tilly 11/8/04 12:01:27 PM Reply	And what is a "state's rights issue"? You're assuming a far better understanding of the US constitution than most Americans have. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,475 by jake123 11/8/04 12:04:40 PM Reply	An issue that is under the purview of the state government as opposed to the federal government. By framing it as a states' right issue, you frame it in a way that is definitely comprehensible to the south-eastern vote. "States' Rights" is a buzzword and people do know what it means in general, even if they can't discuss the particulars very well. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #183,477 by ben_tilly 11/8/04 12:21:06 PM Reply	A complication for you Most people understand the word "married" to mean one thing. The idea that MA says that you're married by OH doesn't is very confusing. And yes, I'm fully aware that there are multiple definitions already. For instance the Catholic Church says that I'm not married while every US state says that I am. For another example, I know a gay couple who got married in Greece. Greece recognizes it but no US state (except possibly MA) recognizes that marriage. But how many people in the general public are going to think that it makes sense unless it is explained carefully? Or even if it is explained carefully (as already noted, they're not paying much attention so careful explanations are generally a waste of breath). Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,479 by jake123 11/8/04 12:41:38 PM Reply	Who said it has to make sense? You're talking electoral politics in the US here. Looking for sense is a fool's errand. In short, you don't (and more specifically, Kerry didn't) have to fully explain it. What he needed to say was: "Marriage is handled by the states, and it won't be my place as President of this country to tell them how they should handle it." ... and he should have gone on to say "by the way... take a look at your communities. Are they better off or worse off than they were four years ago? How are your schools holding up? Are they shortening the school year because they can't afford to keep them open?" The Kerry campaign (and Democrats in general) should be looking at and issues that work in red states. The current concentration by both parties on swing states to the exclusion of non-swing states is going to do bad things to the national fabric. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #183,482 by bepatient 11/8/04 12:53:11 PM Reply	I already told you. I would NOT have mentioned anything about any candidates children. As for the direct statement of issue, jake pretty much has it. >>I don't believe it is the federal governments role to decide issues of marriage that have been and should continue to be decided by the states themselves.<< Tie that in to the red state mantra of smaller government..you don't need Washington telling you how to live..etc..etc...would play VERY WELL in red states. No bending over backwards to try and convince everyone that people are people and that ..by the way... VP Cheney loves his daughter who just happens to be a lesbian. Sheesh. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,493 by jb4 11/8/04 1:31:10 PM Reply	Not anyone. Just (at least) 50% of 'em... jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #183,495 by bepatient 11/8/04 1:36:48 PM Reply	Re: Not anyone. Just (at least) 50% of 'em... You're just being difficult, now aren't you? ;-) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,484 by JayMehaffey 11/8/04 12:57:15 PM Reply	Another good example [link\|http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1022-01.htm\|Common Dreams] Nonetheless, 56 percent of Bush supporters said they believed that most experts currently believe that Iraq had actual WMD, and 57 percent said they thought that the Duelfer Report had itself concluded that Iraq either had WMD (19 percent) or a major WMD program (38 percent). Only 26 percent of Kerry supporters, by contrast, said they believed that pre-war Iraq had either actual WMD or a WMD program, and only 18 percent said they believed that \ufffdmost experts\ufffd agreed. Similar results were found with respect to Hussein\ufffds alleged support for al Qaeda, a theory that has been most persistently asserted by Vice president Dick Cheney, but that was thoroughly debunked by the final report of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission earlier this summer. Seventy-five percent of Bush supporters said they believed that Iraq was providing \ufffdsubstantial\ufffd support to Al Qaeda, with 20 percent asserting that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Sixty-three percent of Bush supporters even believed that the clear evidence of such support has actually been found, and 60 percent believe that \ufffdmost experts\ufffd have reached the same conclusion. By contrast, only 30 percent of Kerry supporters said they believe that such a link existed and that most experts agree. But large majorities of both Bush and Kerry supporters agree that the administration is saying that Iraq had WMD and was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. In regard to WMD, those majorities have actually grown since last summer, according to PIPA. On WMD, 82 percent of Bush supporters and 84 percent of Kerry supporters believed that the administration is saying that Iraq either had WMD or major WMD programs. On ties with al Qaeda, 75 percent of Bush supporters and 74 percent of Kerry supporters believe that the administration is saying that Iraq provided substantial support to the terrorist group. Remarkably, asked whether the U.S. should have gone to war with Iraq if U.S. intelligence had concluded that Baghdad did not have a WMD program and was not providing support to al Qaeda, 58 percent of Bush supporters said no, and 61 percent said they assumed that Bush would also not have gone to war under those circumstances. In particular, majorities or Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that he supports multilateral approaches to various international issues, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) (69 percent), the land mine treaty (72 percent), and the Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming (51 percent). In August, two thirds of Bush supporters also said they believed that Bush supported the International Criminal Court (ICC), although in the latest poll, that figure dropped to a 53 percent majority, even though Bush explicitly denounced the ICC in the most widely watched nationally televised debate of the campaign in late September. In all of these cases, majorities of Bush supporters said they favored the positions that they imputed, incorrectly, to Bush. Large majorities of Kerry supporters, on the other hand, showed they knew both their candidate\ufffds and Bush\ufffds positions on the same issues. All the evidence says rather directly that Kerry supporters where better informed then Bush supporters. More over, it appears that a significant percentage of Bush supporters do so only because they are missinformed. What this doesn't answer is the question of how much of this problem is self deception by Bush supporters, how much is failure of Kerry to be specific, how much is deceptive statements by the White House and how much is failure to inform on the part of the Press. Jay
Post #183,486 by bepatient 11/8/04 1:06:36 PM Reply	DING DING DING DING how much is failure to inform on the part of the Press. And how much is that particular story part of the problem? Ask the same questions to each audience and show all results. Everywhere. South Central, Bronx, West Philly...everywhere. I happened to agree 100% with Mr Stewart when he fired at the crossfire guys. He is >right<. They fail to do what they say they intend to do...which is inform. All of the 24 hour news networks and certainly the 3 majors fail at this. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,452 by jb4 11/8/04 9:35:41 AM Reply	Here's a suggestion, Ben Neutralize Karl Rove. Find his long lost lesbian daughter. Find those pedophile pictures he has in his basement. Scrounge up the credit card charges for escort services he used when on the road campaigning for his "moral" ~~puppet~~candidate. French sex clubs...the public just loves French sex clubs (just ask Jack Ryan). The beauty of it is, it doesn't even have to be accurate (this election; indeed, this thread has shown that). Just manufacture some good "evidence" (Hollywood should be good for that), make sure it gets high publicity, repeat every 2-3 months with something new (must reinforce the meme periodically, or the Eloi will forget). There is a certain Karmic balance of the "his own medicine" approach.... jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #183,586 by daemon 11/8/04 5:43:17 PM Reply	reminds me of LBJ supposedly true story [link\|http://www.bestoftheblogs.com/2003_10_24_bestof.html\|http://www.bestofthe...10_24_bestof.html] I say, let the boys continue to deny it, because part of the denial is retelling the lie. Reminds me of a reportedly true story about LBJ. In one of his heated campaigns for the senate he called in his press aide to issue a release saying that "my wooorthy opponent has carnal knowledge of animals." The press aide immediately says, "Senator, you can't call your opponent a pig-fucker." "Aaaaah," Lyndon says, "I just want to hear him stand up and deny it." posted by Josh Hammond 8:34 AM Comment (0) nothing new here. regards, daemon that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
Post #183,487 by tuberculosis 11/8/04 1:11:00 PM Reply	No he didn't Its all about PR. That's what he's saying. We need a Hollywood image doctor to win I guess. Which to me seems like a sign of real trouble in the US. But perhaps this has always been true. "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
Post #183,492 by Another Scott 11/8/04 1:27:18 PM Reply	Tippecanoe and Tyler, too. [link\|http://www.thehistorynet.com/ah/bltorrectofmusic/\|Here]: What has caused the great commotion, motion, motion, Our country through? It's the ball a rolling on, on. For Tippecanoe and Tyler, too. Tippecanoe and Tyler, too. And with them we'll beat little Van, Van, Van. Van is a used up man. And with them we'll beat little Van. [...] While the 1840 Whig campaign did not have a long-range effect on public policy, the songs left an echo. The cynicism bred from a campaign based upon emotion and propaganda rears its head every four years as the major political parties unleash presidential campaigns in which style trumps substance and slogans override issues. The more things change... Cheers, Scott.
Post #183,505 by deSitter 11/8/04 1:55:01 PM 11/8/04 1:55:51 PM Reply	right - the more things change.. Tyler became President when W.H. Harrison died only a month into office, in 1841. The Whigs eventually ejected Tyler from the party because he stood firm for states' rights, on Constitutional grounds. The conservative Whigs dissolved into irrelevance and were replaced by fire-eating radicals - the Republicans. When the Civil War was all but inevitable, Tyler lead a hopeless compromise movement. This was the last official gasp for the former Whigs. If only the Whigs had survived... -drl Edited by deSitter Nov. 8, 2004, 01:55:51 PM EST Expand All History
Post #183,261 by GBert 11/6/04 6:37:24 PM 11/8/04 7:35:21 AM Reply	So where do we go from here? I'm OK, right? I didn't vote for the gay marriage party; I voted for the torture and profligacy party like most everybody else. Giovanni [*] on edit, a clarification -- that was my sarcastic interpretation of the concern for moral values that supposedly led America to vote Bush. I'm not a US citizen, but had I been one, I would have taken what I guess turns out to be the pro-immorality stance, and voted against the torture and war-criminal party. Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for. You don't need George Bush for that. Edited by GBert Nov. 7, 2004, 10:44:29 AM EST Edited by GBert Nov. 8, 2004, 07:34:58 AM EST Edited by GBert Nov. 8, 2004, 07:35:21 AM EST Expand All History
Post #183,363 by Simon_Jester 11/7/04 3:11:40 PM Reply	Now, now...be nice... everyone knows that the torture was Clinton's fault.
Post #183,432 by Another Scott 11/8/04 7:22:22 AM Reply	Been reading Karl's playbook? 65 kB .gif [image\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/comics/images/Toles/20041108.gif\|0\|Who do we blame now?\|395\|468] This may, just may, be a constraint on them. Cheers, Scott.
Post #183,450 by admin 11/8/04 9:29:47 AM Reply	You broke it, you bought it. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #183,439 by deSitter 11/8/04 9:08:55 AM Reply	Can you get me into Italy? :) -drl

Welcome to IWETHEY!