NationStates Jolt Archive

I just watched Alexandra Pelosi's documentary ("Right America: Feeling Wronged") (http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/rightamerica/index.html) on HBO about the feelings of conservative Americans during the McCain vs. Obama election. It reminded me of how angry and frustrated several conservative posters in this Forum seem to feel.

We've had references to Obama as "The Dark Lord" and the election as Fort Sumter. We've had many, many posts about "where is the change?" and "new boss, same as the old boss." Some defend these sentiments by claiming that they are simply treating Obama the way liberals treated Bush.

After the "defeats" of Gore and Kerry, it isn't hard for me to imagine how bitter I would be if McCain had won the election.

What do you think will become of such bile? Can it be healed? Are we doomed to a constant culture war for the forseeable future?

I'd say most of the angry voices are from rank-and-file members of the Dubya Cult of Personality, i.e. Busheviks. Real conservatives would find the Obama victory a warning sign that there needs to be some serious housecleaning in their own ranks.

Oh yeah for a long time to come. It will eventually go away but it could take months.

The bile will disappear when the Republicans win again, proving once and for all that they dont care about America like they claim they do. They only care about themselves. I dont think any NSG liberal called for armed secession after W won in 2000 or in 2004. Because we actually care about our country, and dont put on this facade of patriotism while in reality only care about our ideology.

The best part about the "Im only treating him how you treated Bush!" arguement is it really misses the reality of the situation (like the vast majority of ther 'arguements'). Liberals didnt relentlessly attack Bush just because he had an 'R' in front of his name (and if they did, they werent the majority). People attacked Bush because he did stupid shit. People attacked him because the outcome of his election was dubious, and 9 old people got to vote twice, and the second time their vote counted more.

Attacking the president just because hes not on your side is idiotic, and it takes a truly twisted person to see it as somehow "fair" and really believe thats what the other side did. Obama won his election fair and square. Obama has not started any wars. Obama has not caused an economic collapse. Obama has not stripped away basic consitutional rights. Obama has done some things that I think warrent criticism. But real criticism, not the olympic caliber long jumps some resident posters here are so fond of making, and certianly not partisan sniping just for the sake of partisan sniping.

Its the same thinking that led people on the right to believe that America was mad at Bush during Katrina because he didnt fly there.

What do you think will become of such bile? Can it be healed? Are we doomed to a constant culture war for the forseeable future?

I am ok with BHO myself. I don't see him as radically different from McCain or Hillary Clinton in any major way, and given the nature of Washington, it's a lot harder for him to implement radical change, even in an eight-year period. I am even OK with Harry Reid.

I am not ok with Nancy Pelosi. It's pretty clear from the way she handles BHO and Reid that if she had her way, the US would go past the old Soviet Union on a careening ride straight to the Left.

Yes, we're in a culture war. But if you haven't noticed, we've been in one since the 1960s.

The idea that they're "treating Obama the way liberals treated Bush" is a lie. Bush enjoyed HUGE popularity post 9/11. He squandered it. The liberal attitude towards bush within a month of his election was, at best, irritated indifference. It took years for Bush to ear such contempt. The anger at Bush at the beginning of his administration was less about his actions, and more about individuals who felt that an election had been stolen due to the machinations of a secretary of state who just so happened to be appointed by Bush's brother. That the actual, legitimate will of the people was ignored due to a two century's old technicality.

The fact is, even after Bush was elected in a VERY narrow election, democrats were willing to reach across the isle and work with the president. Republicans have shown no such courtesy, and continue to act as if the 2006 and 2008 elections were not a sound rebuke of the ideology that they continue to push.

I have no pity for a party that claims they're being ignored. The state of America today is in DIRECT result to their policies. When policies are demonstrably bad, you ignore them. And even so, the current administration has tried to bring them on board and build consensus. They've refused.

I just watched Alexandra Pelosi's

Any relation of Nancy?

Any relation of Nancy?

Yes, she is Nancy's daughter. She's a well-known and award-winning documentarian:

Alexandra Pelosi began her career in TV covering politics in Washington, D.C., and subsequently served as a network news producer for seven years. For her first film, 2000's Emmy®-winning HBO documentary "Journeys with George," she spent 18 months on the campaign trail with future president George W. Bush. For the 2004 HBO documentary "Diary of a Political Tourist," she spent a year and a half following seven Democratic presidential candidates, including John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Howard Dean. Her third film, "Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi," explored the booming Christian Evangelical movement in America. Her other current project is the HBO documentary "The Trials of Ted Haggard," which debuts Jan. 29 on HBO. Pelosi is the daughter of California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, who became the first female Speaker of the House in 2007.

EDIT: None of the above is to deny that Ms. Pelosi has a definite liberal bent. She has had some rather remarkable success in befriending some conservatives, however.

The idea that they're "treating Obama the way liberals treated Bush" is a lie. Bush enjoyed HUGE popularity post 9/11.

Lie.

He had no huge popularity with liberals. If I hear another "Bush stole the election..."

But of course, you forget that whole episode...

I just watched Alexandra Pelosi's documentary ("Right America: Feeling Wronged") (http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/rightamerica/index.html) on HBO about the feelings of conservative Americans during the McCain vs. Obama election. It reminded me of how angry and frustrated several conservative posters in this Forum seem to feel.

We've had references to Obama as "The Dark Lord" and the election as Fort Sumter. We've had many, many posts about "where is the change?" and "new boss, same as the old boss." Some defend these sentiments by claiming that they are simply treating Obama the way liberals treated Bush.

After the "defeats" of Gore and Kerry, it isn't hard for me to imagine how bitter I would be if McCain had won the election.

What do you think will become of such bile? Can it be healed? Are we doomed to a constant culture war for the forseeable future?

Depends on what you mean by 'healed'. will it stop? I doubt it. but I do believe those detractors still need to be heard... because they are the ones watching Pres Obama and they would be the ones to spot any 'mistake' like the 'liberals' were doing with Fmr President Bush Jr.

the only problem is one has to wade through the sewer to find the occasional gem stone.

EDIT: never heard Obama refered to as "the Dark Lord". I heard that about Chaney more often. but then I tended to tune out the election stuff here. :p

Maybe the guys who lost should stop being such whining babies. Seriously.

Lie.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Lie.

He had no huge popularity with liberals. If I hear another "Bush stole the election..."

You have evidence of this? Because his approval rating was 90%. So clearly quite a few liberals at the very least "approved" of the job he was doing.

Once again DK, we have evidence, you dont.

Obama has an 80% approval rating right now, so he is obviously a democratic choice. I remember when Bush had ratings like that...back in ol' 2001. Now, for the first time in a long while, the majority of white Evangelical Christians claim they trust Democrats more than Republicans.

The idea that they're "treating Obama the way liberals treated Bush" is a lie. Bush enjoyed HUGE popularity post 9/11. He squandered it. The liberal attitude towards bush within a month of his election was, at best, irritated indifference. It took years for Bush to ear such contempt. The anger at Bush at the beginning of his administration was less about his actions, and more about individuals who felt that an election had been stolen due to the machinations of a secretary of state who just so happened to be appointed by Bush's brother. That the actual, legitimate will of the people was ignored due to a two century's old technicality.

The fact is, even after Bush was elected in a VERY narrow election, democrats were willing to reach across the isle and work with the president. Republicans have shown no such courtesy, and continue to act as if the 2006 and 2008 elections were not a sound rebuke of the ideology that they continue to push.

I have no pity for a party that claims they're being ignored. The state of America today is in DIRECT result to their policies. When policies are demonstrably bad, you ignore them. And even so, the current administration has tried to bring them on board and build consensus. They've refused.

Lie.

He had no huge popularity with liberals. If I hear another "Bush stole the election..."

But of course, you forget that whole episode...

You are both partially right.

Neo did directly discuss the "stole the election" issue in his post. He clearly didn't forget it.

So liberals did have an issue with Bush's election -- whether it was legitimate or not is a different question -- but it also is true that he had broad-based support after 9/11.

Obama has an 80% approval rating right now, so he is obviously a democratic choice. I remember when Bush had ratings like that...back in ol' 2001.

Actually, its 62%, but 80% approve of the way he handled the transition. Common mistake, and the press isnt helping the matter.


Unless Im wrong, and his approval rating skyrocketed over the weekened.

Hmm, a dark lord that's the same as the old guy.

Didn't they say the same things about Darth Benedict?

Maybe the guys who lost should stop being such whining babies. Seriously.
That would be a first in American politics.

So long as they all voted, they get the right to complain. Democrats have had 8 years to do so. Republicans now get their turn.

So it is up to the current president to shut them all up with brilliant policy making. So far I am not disappointed and I think he deserves a little leeway.

Actually, its 62%, but 80% approve of the way he handled the transition. Common mistake, and the press isnt helping the matter.

How very strange! And I read that in an article that was in no way pro-Obama.

Unless Im wrong, and his approval rating skyrocketed over the weekened.

Give him some time; Kennedy won by an extremely narrow margin, but was utterly loved later.

How very strange! And I read that in an article that was in no way pro-Obama.

Shoddy research on the part of the writer then?

Give him some time; Kennedy won by an extremely narrow margin, but was utterly loved later.
Getting assassinated probably helped that. Id rather Obama not become loved that way:p

EDIT: never heard Obama refered to as "the Dark Lord". I heard that about Chaney more often. but then I tended to tune out the election stuff here. :p

Check out the signature as well as the post (which is one of many along the same lines):

It is a LOTR reference. BO = The Dark Lord. That goofball symbol of his = the Ring of Power. Wright, Ayers, Dorn, Pflager, Farrakhan, etc. = Nazgul. Obammunists = Orcs, Haradrim, Variags, Corsairs of Umbar, etc.

NM's signature:

"I hope he fails." -- Rush Limbaugh, on the Dark Lord.

I will give your president the same respect you gave mine.

Barack Hussein Obama: Arabic for "shit-shoveling socialist son-of-a-bitch."

Check out the signature as well as the post (which is one of many along the same lines):



NM's signature:

"I hope he fails." -- Rush Limbaugh, on the Dark Lord.

I will give your president the same respect you gave mine.

Barack Hussein Obama: Arabic for "shit-shoveling socialist son-of-a-bitch."
ah, no wonder I missed it. :p

Speaking of dark lords...

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/N/j/bush_the_one_ring.jpg

I just watched Alexandra Pelosi's documentary ("Right America: Feeling Wronged") (http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/rightamerica/index.html) on HBO about the feelings of conservative Americans during the McCain vs. Obama election. It reminded me of how angry and frustrated several conservative posters in this Forum seem to feel.

We've had references to Obama as "The Dark Lord" and the election as Fort Sumter. We've had many, many posts about "where is the change?" and "new boss, same as the old boss." Some defend these sentiments by claiming that they are simply treating Obama the way liberals treated Bush.

After the "defeats" of Gore and Kerry, it isn't hard for me to imagine how bitter I would be if McCain had won the election.

What do you think will become of such bile? Can it be healed? Are we doomed to a constant culture war for the forseeable future?

My major issue with the 2008 election was the way that the media treated Barack Obama; they completely fell under his spell and were very strongly biased in favour of him. I still maintain that had the media shown some balance, that McCain would have had a fighting chance in the 2008 elections. Instead, the media coverage was wall to wall Obama and McCain had to fight to get a word in.

I am not like most Conservatives and suggest that it is a Fort Sumter event or anything like that, however, I do believe that it is time for us to question the partisanship of the media - after all, they do influence elections. Hopefully in 2012, the media will show some balance and give equal coverage to both candidates, and not portray anyone of them as some Messianic being.

What do you think will become of such bile? Can it be healed? Are we doomed to a constant culture war for the forseeable future?

It's hard to say. Remember that division is not only on the Conservative side. Obama talks as though he wants to repair this gap, and though I don't doubt him, it will be a long, and arduous undertaking. I gained a fair amount of repsect for him, when he chose Rick Warren for his inauguration prayer. Though recall the liberal outcry? This isn't meant to blame, and if Obama fallows through with even small gestures like this, I think it will at least go a long way in repairing the state of our country.

I lean conservative (though really, I'm actually moderate) but I don't hate, or dislike liberal people, I dopn't have much faith in Obama, but he is our president, until he gives me good reason to stop liking him, I will respect him (and even then, I respect him, and support his presidency, the difference is whether or not I vote for him in 4 years). I don't see why both camps can't get along, really. Except of course that we are humans, and prone to divisive behaviour.

Lie.

He had no huge popularity with liberals. If I hear another "Bush stole the election..."

But of course, you forget that whole episode...

here's a tip. why don't you read the WHOLE post?

Also, explain to me how one can have 80% approval rating while being unpopular with 35% of the population.

portray anyone of them as some Messianic being.

When did any news media source do this exactly?

Then there are the morons who question Obama's citizenship.

I'd say most of the angry voices are from rank-and-file members of the Dubya Cult of Personality, i.e. Busheviks. Real conservatives would find the Obama victory a warning sign that there needs to be some serious housecleaning in their own ranks.

I have to find myself agreeing. I'm ashamed to say I'm "conservative" now, mostly because I find myself unfairly associated with Dubya. The GOP has gotten so far away from its roots that it's beyond disturbing. We need to stop whining, accept that we got to this position, and then clean out our ranks and get back to where we were: standing for smaller government.

My major issue with the 2008 election was the way that the media treated Barack Obama; they completely fell under his spell and were very strongly biased in favour of him. I still maintain that had the media shown some balance, that McCain would have had a fighting chance in the 2008 elections. Instead, the media coverage was wall to wall Obama and McCain had to fight to get a word in.

I am not like most Conservatives and suggest that it is a Fort Sumter event or anything like that, however, I do believe that it is time for us to question the partisanship of the media - after all, they do influence elections. Hopefully in 2012, the media will show some balance and give equal coverage to both candidates, and not portray anyone of them as some Messianic being.
This whole post is bullshit.
Though recall the liberal outcry?

How dare gays and gay rights activists be upset that Obama chose a man who compared homosexuality to pedophelia to speak at his inaugeration?!?

here's a tip. why don't you read the WHOLE post?

Also, explain to me how one can have 80% approval rating while being unpopular with 35% of the population.

conservatives count thrice

conservatives count thrice

And liberals only count for 3/5ths.

Really, conservatives are just being children. They lost, so clearly that meant that everyone was out to get them.

It cant be that their party destroyed the country through its bankrupt ideology and committed blunder after blunder or anything.

For Gods sake. They "feel wronged"? Who, exactly, "wronged" them? America, by not voting for them? We call that democracy bitches.

This is up there with Thatcher's quote about her removel from office being "treason with a smile".

And liberals only count for 3/5ths.Liberals=Slaves?
Hey, slavery gets shit done, apparently. :D

Really, conservatives are just being children. They lost, so clearly that meant that everyone was out to get them.

It cant be that their party destroyed the country through its bankrupt ideology and committed blunder after blunder or anything.

For Gods sake. They "feel wronged"? Who, exactly, "wronged" them? America, by not voting for them? We call that democracy bitches.

This is up there with Thatcher's quote about her removel from office being "treason with a smile".You aren't a real American. How dare you insult the GOP with your common sense and your facts. We have no need of either here, GTFO, commie.

My major issue with the 2008 election was the way that the media treated Barack Obama; they completely fell under his spell and were very strongly biased in favour of him

So? Conservative talk show hated him.

I still maintain that had the media shown some balance, that McCain would have had a fighting chance in the 2008 elections. Instead, the media coverage was wall to wall Obama and McCain had to fight to get a word in.

Bush really screwed things up. McCain was promising to be another Bush, and even most Republicans would not stand for that.

I am not like most Conservatives and suggest that it is a Fort Sumter event or anything like that, however, I do believe that it is time for us to question the partisanship of the media - after all, they do influence elections.

Sure, that is politics. Nixon complained about the same thing when Kennedy beat him; but Nixon tried again and learned how to get enough media support to be elected. America is mostly a conservative nation: we hate gun control, gay-marriage, welfare, we are pro-war, we like the death penalty, ect. McCain's politics are certainly more in line with the nation's, but unconsciously the people could see he was opting for the same incompetent administration Bush had.

Hopefully in 2012, the media will show some balance and give equal coverage to both candidates, and not portray anyone of them as some Messianic being.

1: Hyperbole.

2: That will happen when radio shows some balance.

Forgive me, but why should those who opposed a politician's election, and oppose his policies, then not criticise them when elected?

Sure, that is politics. Nixon complained about the same thing when Kennedy beat him; but Nixon tried again and learned how to get enough media support to be elected.


The media loved Bush in 2000, for example.


America is mostly a conservative nation: we hate gun control, gay-marriage, welfare, we are pro-war, we like the death penalty, ect. McCain's politics are certainly more in line with the nation's, but unconsciously the people could see he was opting for the same incompetent administration Bush had.


Actually, polls consistantly show that the only social issue the majority of Americans agree with the Republicans is the Death Penalty. Otherwise, America is mostly pro-choice, pro-gay rights, etc.

Unfortunitally, the right wingers are just the loudest and vote the most.

Forgive me, but why should those who opposed a politician's election, and oppose his policies, then not criticise them when elected?

Legitamate crticism is fine. Howling at phantoms is just pathetic. I have real complaints about Obama too. But the difference between me and certian posters is Im A) consistant and B) complaining about real things, not imagined ones.

I have to find myself agreeing. I'm ashamed to say I'm "conservative" now, mostly because I find myself unfairly associated with Dubya. The GOP has gotten so far away from its roots that it's beyond disturbing. We need to stop whining, accept that we got to this position, and then clean out our ranks and get back to where we were: standing for smaller government.

The Busheviks have been for smaller government, so to speak. Unfortunately, they were usually in the form of industrial deregulation, which of course contributed to the wonderful mess the nation is in today.

Really, conservatives are just being children.

You realize classifying conservatives as a whole is not logical, correct?

I'm a Libertarian Conservative, and I personally believe Obama was a bad choice, why?

Socialism, thats why. Obama is a Socialist plain and clear, We don't need a larger government that helps everyone and controls all, We need a smaller government.

Lower taxes, Stronger military, More individual freedoms and rights, An example of a perfect president would be Michael Badnarik, Ron Paul, or even Bob Barr.

"Spreading the wealth" and free healthcare for all, starts sounding more like a "Lets all love eachother and sing kumbaya in a circle" communist regime every day, Before you know it it will end up being something like this. - "Thats not your house, it's our house, and we are letting you use it."
No property means no rights, and no rights means tyranny has alas won again.

"Thats not your car, it's our car, and we are letting you borrow it.
Good ol' Socialism, stripping every working man of his property and possessions in order to pay for some lazy shitbird who wont get a job.

You realize classifying conservatives as a whole is not logical, correct?

I'm a Libertarian Conservative, and I personally believe Obama was a bad choice, why?

Socialism, thats why.

"Spreading the wealth" and free healthcare for all, starts sounding more like a "Lets all love eachother and sing kumbaya in a circle" communist regime every day, Before you know it it will end up being

"Thats not your house, it's our house, and we are letting you use it."
"Thats not your car, it's our car, and we are letting you borrow it.
Good ol' Socialism, stripping every working man of his property and possessions in order to pay for some lazy shitbird who cant get a job.

As opposed to the Corporate Socialism of the past 8 years where profit was privatized, losses are socialized in the form of bailouts, and incompetent executives are rewarded for tanking the companies they're placed in charge of.

But hey, it's only Evil Commie Socialism when the average human being down on his or her luck gets the handout instead of a faceless and primitive (Ford, GM, Chrysler) or outright greedy and incompetent (Fanny, Freddie, AIG) corporation right?

You realize classifying conservatives as a whole is not logical, correct?

I'm a Libertarian Conservative, and I personally believe Obama was a bad choice, why?

Socialism, thats why. Obama is a Socialist plain and clear, We don't need a larger government that helps everyone and controls all, We need a smaller government.

Lower taxes, Stronger military, More individual freedoms and rights, An example of a perfect president would be Michael Badnarik, Ron Paul, or even Bob Barr.

"Spreading the wealth" and free healthcare for all, starts sounding more like a "Lets all love eachother and sing kumbaya in a circle" communist regime every day, Before you know it it will end up being something like this. - "Thats not your house, it's our house, and we are letting you use it."

"Thats not your car, it's our car, and we are letting you borrow it.
Good ol' Socialism, stripping every working man of his property and possessions in order to pay for some lazy shitbird who wont get a job.

Scott Adams's "You are wrong because____" list has a counter to that. I believe the attached quote is "If you let a barber chop off your hair, next thing you know he'll be chopping off your limbs!" or something.

Socialism, thats why. Obama is a Socialist plain and clear...Right, because, even though the Socialist presidential candidate himself denied (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/brian-moore-barack-obama-not-socialist) that Obama was a socialist, he clearly doesn't know his own parties political ideology. :rolleyes:

So? Conservative talk show hated him

Conservatives hated McCain until he started winning the primary. Anyone remember Rush's "He'll be the death of the Republican Party" speech?

Or Anne Coulter saying she'd rather vote for Hillary than McCain?

American political ideologues are worthless in general. Liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, left or right. They ridiculously over-exaggerate their accomplishments and the other group's failings while ridiculously under-exaggerating their own failures and the other group's accomplishments.

Requesting any degree of objectivity or impartiality in their "The-world-will-come-to-an-end-if-people-don't-vote-our-way" tirades is a waste of breath by definition.

I wish they would pass a law against the use of logical fallacies by political pundits. It would really clean house. And free up radio and television airtime for even more insipid falling in love competition reality shows.

You realize classifying conservatives as a whole is not logical, correct?

I'm a Libertarian Conservative, and I personally believe Obama was a bad choice, why?

Socialism, thats why. Obama is a Socialist plain and clear, We don't need a larger government that helps everyone and controls all, We need a smaller government.

Lower taxes, Stronger military, More individual freedoms and rights, An example of a perfect president would be Michael Badnarik, Ron Paul, or even Bob Barr.

"Spreading the wealth" and free healthcare for all, starts sounding more like a "Lets all love eachother and sing kumbaya in a circle" communist regime every day, Before you know it it will end up being something like this. - "Thats not your house, it's our house, and we are letting you use it."
No property means no rights, and no rights means tyranny has alas won again.

"Thats not your car, it's our car, and we are letting you borrow it.
Good ol' Socialism, stripping every working man of his property and possessions in order to pay for some lazy shitbird who wont get a job.

Okay... SOMEBODY GET THIS GUY A DICTIONARY!!!

Okay... SOMEBODY GET THIS GUY A DICTIONARY!!!Got one, boss. (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

I would be sympathetic....

But after the President reached out to those jerks and they decided that the best way to show their gratitude at being included at all was to stab him in the back...

Well, now they can rot for all I care...

You realize classifying conservatives as a whole is not logical, correct?

I'm a Libertarian Conservative, and I personally believe Obama was a bad choice, why?

Socialism, thats why. Obama is a Socialist plain and clear, We don't need a larger government that helps everyone and controls all, We need a smaller government.

Lower taxes, Stronger military, More individual freedoms and rights, An example of a perfect president would be Michael Badnarik, Ron Paul, or even Bob Barr.

"Spreading the wealth" and free healthcare for all, starts sounding more like a "Lets all love eachother and sing kumbaya in a circle" communist regime every day, Before you know it it will end up being something like this. - "Thats not your house, it's our house, and we are letting you use it."
No property means no rights, and no rights means tyranny has alas won again.

"Thats not your car, it's our car, and we are letting you borrow it.
Good ol' Socialism, stripping every working man of his property and possessions in order to pay for some lazy shitbird who wont get a job.


There is something very cute about talking down to me and then not only not understanding what socialism is, but actually believing Bob Barr and Ron Paul stand for individual freedoms and rights.

Got one, boss. (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

Splendid!

Rykarian Territories, LOOK UP SOCIALISM TO LEARN WHAT IT MEANS!

Good ol' Socialism, stripping every working man of his property and possessions in order to pay for some lazy shitbird who wont get a job.

What I love most about this argument is that about 95% of the time, the person making it is an upper-middle-class teenage white boy who thinks "getting a job" means "having Daddy create a position in his company just for you."

"having Daddy create a position in his company just for you."

If only my Dad could do this....:rolleyes: lol

The Busheviks have been for smaller government, so to speak. Unfortunately, they were usually in the form of industrial deregulation, which of course contributed to the wonderful mess the nation is in today.

Which isn't exactly the form of smaller government I meant, necessarily. I meant more along the lines of minimizing government intervention in social problems and what not. I.e. letting things work themselves out while the government sits back and waits for a major threat to occur.

Splendid!

Rykarian Territories, LOOK UP SOCIALISM TO LEARN WHAT IT MEANS!


Doubt he'll be back.

I meant more along the lines of minimizing government intervention in social problems and what not. I.e. letting things work themselves out while the government sits back and waits for a major threat to occur.

Like they should be Sitting back and watching foreclosures then when the Major Economy threat comes by, Intervene?....



It is an Interesting Theory...

What I love most about this argument is that about 95% of the time, the person making it is an upper-middle-class teenage white boy who thinks "getting a job" means "having Daddy create a position in his company just for you."

*sigh* We've been over this Poli. Youre just lazy and not applying yourself, and since youre also a woman, that means youre inherantly bad with money too.


You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand.

What I love most about this argument is that about 95% of the time, the person making it is an upper-middle-class teenage white boy who thinks "getting a job" means "having Daddy create a position in his company just for you."The sad thing is that my dad could do this, and its true. :( (Yes, when I was slightly younger, and less...liberal, I used this argument.)

*sigh* We've been over this Poli. Youre just lazy and not applying yourself, and since youre also a woman, that means youre inherantly bad with money too.She can work in the new accountant position that my dad just created for me! :D

Doubt he'll be back.

Still, I needed to vent. :p

She can work in the new accountant position that my dad just created for me! :D

Oh, get me a job in the security department where I do nothing! I would be perfect for that. :p

She can work in the new accountant position that my dad just created for me! :D

No no no no...She's supposed to join the Military, dont you know Nothin? :p

If only my Dad could do this....:rolleyes: lol

Clearly it was lazy of you not to be born to wealthier parents. :tongue:

Forgive me, but why should those who opposed a politician's election, and oppose his policies, then not criticise them when elected?

Fair point, which is why I said I could imagine how bitter I would be if McCain had won.

But there is a question of degree. There seems to be some very deep hatred of President Obama that goes well beyond "I oppose his policies." Hoping that the country will get worse just to spite Obama, declaring civil war, etc, seem beyond the pale.

Again, I think both sides have some blame here, but President Obama actually campaigned on and has been trying to reach across the aisle and incorporate bi-partisanship. The primary response seems to have been vitriol.

No no no no...She's supposed to join the Military, dont you know Nothin? :pBut them wiminz cain't fight.

Oh, get me a job in the security department where I do nothing! I would be perfect for that. :pThey're actually looking for a nighttime guard. o_0; (The "area" is around 300,000 square feet, though.)

*sigh* We've been over this Poli. Youre just lazy and not applying yourself, and since youre also a woman, that means youre inherantly bad with money too.

It's true. I try to be responsible, but I keep frittering my money away on things like food and medical care. I just can't seem to learn...


You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand.

Well, duh. :p

So? Conservative talk show hated him.

Talk show has much less sway than other forms of media. Time Magazine, over the last four years, have had fifteen covers with Obama's image on the front, most of them with him only. I can count with the fingers on one hand the number of times that McCain had his image on the front of Time Magazine, and a couple of those times, it was along with someone else.

Indeed, in last year, I was noticing a pattern with Time Magazine front covers

Something
Obama
Something
Obama
Something
Obama
ad infinitum

Bush really screwed things up. McCain was promising to be another Bush, and even most Republicans would not stand for that.

In spite of that, McCain only lost by 3% of the vote. This was in spite of a media who were giving 24/7 news coverage to Obama and giving very little to McCain. What would the margin have been had the media coverage been more balanced? It would have been far narrower in my view, and may have just tipped it for McCain.

Sure, that is politics. Nixon complained about the same thing when Kennedy beat him; but Nixon tried again and learned how to get enough media support to be elected. America is mostly a conservative nation: we hate gun control, gay-marriage, welfare, we are pro-war, we like the death penalty, ect. McCain's politics are certainly more in line with the nation's, but unconsciously the people could see he was opting for the same incompetent administration Bush had.

And the media were falling at Obama's feet.

2: That will happen when radio shows some balance.

Radio has far less influence than TV or Print Media; radio is like the blogosphere in my view, a place where people can rant and people know that people are ranting.

Fair point, which is why I said I could imagine how bitter I would be if McCain had won.

But there is a question of degree. There seems to be some very deep hatred of President Obama that goes well beyond "I oppose his policies." Hoping that the country will get worse just to spite Obama, declaring civil war, etc, seem beyond the pale.

Again, I think both sides have some blame here, but President Obama actually campaigned on and has been trying to reach across the aisle and incorporate bi-partisanship. The primary response seems to have been vitriol.
the number of people who actively hate mr obama is probably no larger than the number of people who actively hated mr bush when he was declared the winner in '00. certainly not larger than the number who hated mr bush after he won in '04.

some republicans want to spend their time hating democrats and opposing their agenda rather than rebuilding and refocusing their own party to make it relevant in the years to come.

Fair point, which is why I said I could imagine how bitter I would be if McCain had won.

But there is a question of degree. There seems to be some very deep hatred of President Obama that goes well beyond "I oppose his policies." Hoping that the country will get worse just to spite Obama, declaring civil war, etc, seem beyond the pale.

Again, I think both sides have some blame here, but President Obama actually campaigned on and has been trying to reach across the aisle and incorporate bi-partisanship. The primary response seems to have been vitriol.
I see it as the rightwing have completely lost sight of the reality of what they are doing. Winning the game is all that matters and ideology is the only thing they are playing with. The way they are acting, it is as if they don't realize this is not a computer game.

You realize classifying conservatives as a whole is not logical, correct?

I'm a Libertarian Conservative, and I personally believe Obama was a bad choice, why?

Socialism, thats why.

And that's the point at which it stopped being worth reading...

Talk show has much less sway than other forms of media. Time Magazine, over the last four years, have had fifteen covers with Obama's image on the front, most of them with him only. I can count with the fingers on one hand the number of times that McCain had his image on the front of Time Magazine, and a couple of those times, it was along with someone else.

Indeed, in last year, I was noticing a pattern with Time Magazine front covers

Something
Obama
Something
Obama
Something
Obama
ad infinitum


Your entire argument consists of your personal impressions. I remember things differently. My impression is just as valid as yours.

Talk show has much less sway than other forms of media. Time Magazine, over the last four years, have had fifteen covers with Obama's image on the front, most of them with him only. I can count with the fingers on one hand the number of times that McCain had his image on the front of Time Magazine, and a couple of those times, it was along with someone else.

Indeed, in last year, I was noticing a pattern with Time Magazine front covers

Something
Obama
Something
Obama
Something
Obama
ad infinitum

Actually, I just went and checked. Between the end of the democrat primary, and the election (I will concede that Obama was in the news cycle longer than mccain in the primary season, but that was due to the ongoing primary, McCain won early) this wasn't the case.

In the time between when Obama won the primary, and he won the election:

Obama was featured on the front cover October 20th, and September 1st (twice). McCain was featured on the cover September 8th (once). However the September 1st/September 8th issues were back to back democrat/republican issues, so it makes sense. So In the actual election season, Obama was shown on exactly 2 covers, by himself, and McCain exactly once. However Sarah Palin appeared, by herself, on the front cover on September 15th issue. So the Democrat ticket appeared twice, and the Republican ticket appeared...twice.

Obama AND McCain appeared together on the cover on November 10th issue (election issue), October 27th, October 6th, and August 11th.

Now Obama has appeared on the cover 3 times since the election, including the post election issue, the time "person of the year" issue, and another, on November 24th. But that was post election.

So I fear you're full of it.



In spite of that, McCain only lost by 3% of the vote.


Obama received 69,456,897 votes out of a total 129,391,711 (McCain got 59,934,814). That's 52.9% to 45.7%. A difference of 7.2%. Considerably more than 3%.

Next time..try telling the truth.

Next time..try telling the truth.

Dammit.

I try to write the best one-liners, and a guy who isn't even trying one-ups me. :p

But there is a question of degree. There seems to be some very deep hatred of President Obama that goes well beyond "I oppose his policies." Hoping that the country will get worse just to spite Obama, declaring civil war, etc, seem beyond the pale.

Fools and idiots the lot of them. Petty little people who are so deeply in love with the idea that they and their choices cannot possibly be wrong that they are willing, in fact, hoping, to see their country fall to ruin so that they can gloat about it. You might hope for reason and sense from most, but these people are as bad as any radical fundamentalist who reject all reason for ideology.

People should be watching FOX to see which way the wind is blowing, FOX, for all its faults, it still far ahead of other news channels in terms of viewers.

They are on the attack, it's quite remarkable, in the run up to the election they were edging towards a partisan coverage but they've switched right back.

FOX wins by driving a wedge between left and right, by polarising people.

The line seems to be that BHO is building up the current recession so that he wins no matter what, it also allows him to pass the Communist Manifesto through scaring people, unlike the Patriot Act through scaring people...whatever, you could get an aneurysm watching FOX these days, I recommend half hour sessions with at least an hour break in between.

I suspect the next 4 years are going to be very ugly, just as the last 8 years were, the hate will grow.

After shock comes a lashing out, it's already started.

here's a tip. why don't you read the WHOLE post?

Also, explain to me how one can have 80% approval rating while being unpopular with 35% of the population.

Woah, woah, go easy on him. They never covered that in fake lawyer school.

Talk show has much less sway than other forms of media. Time Magazine, over the last four years, have had fifteen covers with Obama's image on the front, most of them with him only. I can count with the fingers on one hand the number of times that McCain had his image on the front of Time Magazine, and a couple of those times, it was along with someone else.

Indeed, in last year, I was noticing a pattern with Time Magazine front covers

Something
Obama
Something
Obama
Something
Obama
ad infinitum


January 14 2008: Benazir Bhutto
January 21 2008: Picture of voter legs in curtained cubicles.
January 28 200: Roy Lichtenstein inspired art
February 11 2008: Multiethnic assembly picture
February 4 2008: John McCain (portrait)
February 18 2008: Obama and Clinton run-off
February 25 2008: Photo of teacher
March 3 2008: George Clooney
March 10 2008: Back of Obama's head, in silhouette
March 17 2008: Hillary Clinton
March 24th: "Ten Ideas" cover
March 31 2008: Dali Lama
April 7 2008: Ear of corn
April 14 2008: Pope Benedict XVI
April 21 2008: Picture of Obama as a child
April 28 2008: 'Green' cover. Eco-inspired Iwo Jima art.
May 5 2008: Split cover, Obama and Clinton run-off
May 12 2008: Time 100 cover
May 19 2008: Obama portrait
May 26 2008: Piggybank
June 2 2008: Baby vaccine
June 9 2008: Fire alarm
June 16 2008: Prozac
June 23 2008: 'fat kid'
June 30 2008: Barrier wall
July 7 2008: American flag
July 14 2008: Mark Twain
July 21 2008: Nelson Mandela
July 28 2008: Afghanistan
August 4 2008: LeBron James
August 11 2008: Obama and McCain
August 18 200: Rick Warren
August 25 2008: Russian soldier
September 1 2008: Obama close-up
September 8 2008: McCain close-up
September 15 2008: Sarah Palin close-up
September 29 2008: Wallstreet
October 5 2008: Tom Ford
October 6 2008 'economy' cover. Small inset of Obama, McCain, and The Scream
October 13 2008: Depression
October 20 2008: Obama close-up.
October 27 2008: Obama, Lincoln, FDR, McCain quarters
November 2 2008: Australian beach
November 3 2008: Voting machine
November 10 2008: Obama and McCain
November 17 2008: President-elect Obama
November 24 2008: Obama-as-FDR
November 30 2008: Egratigna Angelique ring
December 1 2008: Tongue depressor
December 8 2008: Michelle Rhee
December 15 2008: GM logo
December 22 2008: List
December 29 2008: "Person of the Year" cover - Obama


So - the 'ad infinitum' was hyperbole, and the high incidence of covers matches the primary and the final election seasons. Apart from that - he's had a couple of covers SINCE he was elected president, which doesn't seem too unreasonable. And - in the all important run-up to the election? Advantage Obama, by one cover.

It's worth noting, Palin got her own cover... Biden got nothing.

Also - unless you've got unusual hands, you can't count McCain's covers "on one hand". Six fingers?

And you have to count two pieces of 'Obama-art' (both post-election) to get to the 13 covers tally. And one picture of him as a kid. And one picture of the back of his head, over a big headline asking if he had enough experience.


In spite of that, McCain only lost by 3% of the vote. This was in spite of a media who were giving 24/7 news coverage to Obama and giving very little to McCain.

McCain should be glad of his TIME covers, because he got off easy. TIME could have given him another two or three covers based on his really news-worthy campaign - but they would all have been at LEAST as negative as the 'Obama experienced' cover.

McCain got a lot of media coverage, Obama got better coverage... partly because he played it better, partly because Democrats played it better, and partly because he didn't make some of the mistakes McCain made.

I suspect the next 4 years are going to be very ugly, just as the last 8 years were, the hate will grow.

Maybe you'll get lucky and Rupert Murdoch,the entire editorial team of Fox News and the radical pundits (from both sides of the political spectrum) will fall over dead.

So - the 'ad infinitum' was hyperbole, and the high incidence of covers matches the primary and the final election seasons. Apart from that - he's had a couple of covers SINCE he was elected president, which doesn't seem too unreasonable. And - in the all important run-up to the election? Advantage Obama, by one cover.

It's worth noting, Palin got her own cover... Biden got nothing.

Also - unless you've got unusual hands, you can't count McCain's covers "on one hand". Six fingers?

However, you notice that four of the six covers were shared with Obama; he only had two on his very own; one during the primaries and one during the campaign itself. If you look at the number of covers that Obama had, it pretty much fitted the something, Obama, something pattern that I mentioned before.

Yes, but then Biden was not unusual - Palin was the first Republican woman Vice-Presidental candidate.

And you have to count two pieces of 'Obama-art' (both post-election) to get to the 13 covers tally. And one picture of him as a kid. And one picture of the back of his head, over a big headline asking if he had enough experience.

I said fifteen over the last few years; that included the couple from a few years back.

McCain should be glad of his TIME covers, because he got off easy. TIME could have given him another two or three covers based on his really news-worthy campaign - but they would all have been at LEAST as negative as the 'Obama experienced' cover.

McCain got a lot of media coverage, Obama got better coverage... partly because he played it better, partly because Democrats played it better, and partly because he didn't make some of the mistakes McCain made.

And partly because the media have always had a left wing bias, and have been even more biased in favour of the Democrats since they turned against the Iraq War because things were going bad (it was funny, the media were initially in favour of it, then they turned 180 degrees when things started going bad).

Also, the mistakes that McCain made were blown out of proportion. Take the fundamentals of the economy are strong statement - McCain was 100% accurate, people were and still are going about their normal business even if the financial sector is having problems. Aside from the automobile industry, I don't see any major non-financial business in the United States going bust.

Yes, but then Biden was not unusual - Palin was the first Republican woman Vice-Presidental candidate.

Oh, so it's ok, and not media bias, if the candidate is a "first" of something?

Well, Obama is the first African American presidential candidate. Nice of you to concede your own argument like that.

Well, Obama is the first African American presidential candidate. Nice of you to concede your own argument like that.

...

Do you take fanboys if they're conceited?

And partly because the media have always had a left wing bias, and have been even more biased in favour of the Democrats since they turned against the Iraq War because things were going bad (it was funny, the media were initially in favour of it, then they turned 180 degrees when things started going bad).

Also, the mistakes that McCain made were blown out of proportion. Take the fundamentals of the economy are strong statement - McCain was 100% accurate, people were and still are going about their normal business even if the financial sector is having problems. Aside from the automobile industry, I don't see any major non-financial business in the United States going bust.

Perhaps the left-wing media in New Zealand isn't reporting this, but the U.S. economy is pretty fucking bad all over. See, e.g., link (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm), link (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/glance.htm).

McCain was simply out of touch with reality when he said that.

EDIT: If the media has "always had a left-wing bias," why did they initially agree with the Bush Administration about invading Iraq based on what we know now (and some thought then) were lies? It seems the media is only "left-wing," when reality disagrees with you.

Lie.

He had no huge popularity with liberals. If I hear another "Bush stole the election..."

But of course, you forget that whole episode...

Excuse me Sir, but he had a 91% approval rating. Are you telling me that this astronomical number was possible without liberals?

I think the Republican Party is about the die, it will either split into several different parties, or just cease to exist altogether. Either way it will probably pave the way for the truly liberal and the truly conservative to rear their heads.

However, you notice that four of the six covers were shared with Obama; he only had two on his very own; one during the primaries and one during the campaign itself. If you look at the number of covers that Obama had, it pretty much fitted the something, Obama, something pattern that I mentioned before.


Except the 'ad infinitum' that suggests it was more than just the three Obama covers, interspersed. In reality - that happened on one occassion, during the primaries - one of the pictures showing him as a child, one shared with the other contendor.


Yes, but then Biden was not unusual - Palin was the first Republican woman Vice-Presidental candidate.


And Barack Obama is the first African American President.


I said fifteen over the last few years; that included the couple from a few years back.


18, I believe - including the 2006 cover that proclaimed "Why Barack Obama Could Be The Next President", a 2009 President-and-First-Lady cover, a 2009 Presidential Portrait cover, the 2007 'Contendor' cover, and the 2007 'influential people' collage cover, which is hardly specific to him, alone.


And partly because the media have always had a left wing bias,


Which is horseshit.

'The media' isn't a hivemind. Fox counts as part of the media, and Fox not only has a bias, but an agenda. MSNBC manages to program both left-wing and right-wing pundits (by American standards, of course... I doubt they ever get actual leftwing pundits). Some of the media leans one way, some leans another way.


...and have been even more biased in favour of the Democrats since they turned against the Iraq War because things were going bad (it was funny, the media were initially in favour of it, then they turned 180 degrees when things started going bad).


No - the media, collectively, started turning on the Bush regime when he started screwing up. Indeed, when it got to the point that THAT regime were defending torture, explaining why it was okay to suspend constitutional rights, and defending the in-and-out war that had been grinding on for half a decade, and been found to be not only illegal, but based on lies... the only parts of the media that DIDN'T turn on the Bush regime were the parts with an agenda more pronounced than their desire to be populist. Mainly Fox.

That's the thing about the media - in general, they'll attack or back you, depending on what sells.


Also, the mistakes that McCain made were blown out of proportion. Take the fundamentals of the economy are strong statement - McCain was 100% accurate, people were and still are going about their normal business even if the financial sector is having problems. Aside from the automobile industry, I don't see any major non-financial business in the United States going bust.

Your ignorance of the realities is not my problem.

What do you think will become of such bile? Can it be healed? Are we doomed to a constant culture war for the forseeable future?

Several times during the campaign, I was called a racist for asking about Obama's background or platform.

Until the Left tries to act like adults, there's no chance.

Several times during the campaign...

Several times? In... 6 posts, total?

Several times? In... 6 posts, total?

Nope, different boards (and once, though not explicitly, to my face). I only recently returned to this game.

Nope, different boards (and once, though not explicitly, to my face). I only recently returned to this game.
So, you just asked "Hey, what is Obama's background?" or "What is Obama's platform?" and leftists yelled "racist!" at you?

I'm really excited as a political scientist because I don't think the Republican Party is going to realize that it is becoming increasing marginalized and irrelevant. This excites me intellectually because I think they are eventually going to implode and there is going to be a party realignment in my lifetime! How cool is that?!

I'm really excited as a political scientist because I don't think the Republican Party is going to realize that it is becoming increasing marginalized and irrelevant. This excites me intellectually because I think they are eventually going to implode and there is going to be a party realignment in my lifetime! How cool is that?!
Politics nerd. ^^ :D

Actually, I just went and checked. Between the end of the democrat primary, and the election (I will concede that Obama was in the news cycle longer than mccain in the primary season, but that was due to the ongoing primary, McCain won early) this wasn't the case.

In the time between when Obama won the primary, and he won the election:

Obama was featured on the front cover October 20th, and September 1st (twice). McCain was featured on the cover September 8th (once). However the September 1st/September 8th issues were back to back democrat/republican issues, so it makes sense. So In the actual election season, Obama was shown on exactly 2 covers, by himself, and McCain exactly once. However Sarah Palin appeared, by herself, on the front cover on September 15th issue. So the Democrat ticket appeared twice, and the Republican ticket appeared...twice.

Obama AND McCain appeared together on the cover on November 10th issue (election issue), October 27th, October 6th, and August 11th.

Now Obama has appeared on the cover 3 times since the election, including the post election issue, the time "person of the year" issue, and another, on November 24th. But that was post election.

So I fear you're full of it.






Obama received 69,456,897 votes out of a total 129,391,711 (McCain got 59,934,814). That's 52.9% to 45.7%. A difference of 7.2%. Considerably more than 3%.

Next time..try telling the truth.

You mean it's better to actually research and do the math than to just pull numbers from your arse? You have been on NSG for too long not to know better. :)

Several times during the campaign, I was called a racist for asking about Obama's background or platform.

Maybe you were. Don't know the context.

But I know I was called many names during the campaign for questioning the background or platform of candidates such as Ron Paul, John McCain, and Sarah Palin.

Until the Left tries to act like adults, there's no chance.

Perhaps that is so. Although calling one's opponents childish isn't likely to encourage civility on their part, is it?

Personally, I think neither the Left nor the Right bears all the blame for this cultural animosity.

Politics nerd. ^^ :D

I mean, seriously! I learn about these things in my classes, but how many people get to actually experience them!

And I'll take that as a compliment, by the way. Its my livelihood, after all.

I'm really excited as a political scientist because I don't think the Republican Party is going to realize that it is becoming increasing marginalized and irrelevant. This excites me intellectually because I think they are eventually going to implode and there is going to be a party realignment in my lifetime! How cool is that?!

People keep saying this and I think a lot of political scientists are over-estimating certain factors. Will there likely be a political realignment (at least of the right)? Possibly. Will it be this sudden implosion that is being touted? I doubt it. Rather, it's probably going to be a decades long petering out. It will be cool to examine in twenty to thirty years, as of right now it's just good to take notes.

So, you just asked "Hey, what is Obama's background?" or "What is Obama's platform?" and leftists yelled "racist!" at you?
Not exactly.

People start talking about McCain's record at Annapolis... I ask when Obama is going to release his own records for comparison... turns into "you just don't want a black president".

Start asking about contradictions between Obama's statements... turns into accusations of racism.

Start talking about reactions to misstatements during the campaign (c'mon, if McCain had talked about '57 states' people would have been screaming that he's unfit for office)... turns into accusations of racism.

The face-to-face occurrence was somebody at work who didn't know my political preferences going off about the only people who support McCain are just trying to keep "old white guys" in office, and "would never vote for a black man."

People keep saying this and I think a lot of political scientists are over-estimating certain factors. Will there likely be a political realignment (at least of the right)? Possibly. Will it be this sudden implosion that is being touted? I doubt it. Rather, it's probably going to be a decades long petering out. It will be cool to examine in twenty to thirty years, as of right now it's just good to take notes.

I don't know, Post Liminality. I can absolutely see the Republicans nominating an individual for President who is so far right that only a tiny fraction of the country supports him, causing their party to dissolve over a single election cycle. I think we saw a lot of people who were so sick of the Republicans just this past election who took it upon themselves to vote for the man, not the party.

It could happen your way (which would still excite me, but less so those non-polisci persons) but I can see it happening my way too.

No, it is cool, actually, but I agree with Post Liminality about it. At least, that's how I would bet.

Historically, party realignments have often been pretty dramatic. Its a really cool subject, if you ask me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election#United_States

I mean, seriously! I learn about these things in my classes, but how many people get to actually experience them!

And I'll take that as a compliment, by the way. Its my livelihood, after all.
No, it is cool, actually, but I agree with Post Liminality about it. At least, that's how I would bet.

Excuse me Sir, but he had a 91% approval rating. Are you telling me that this astronomical number was possible without liberals?

After the election?

He was the first president not to get out of the limousine and walk to to the inauguration, partly due to the amount of eggs being thrown at him.

After 9/11 sure, just after the election, I'd be surprised.

Here - http://www.slate.com/id/2139376/sidebar/2139409/

It seems to be about 65% on election dropping to low 50's before shooting up after 9/11.

Nope, different boards (and once, though not explicitly, to my face). I only recently returned to this game.

So... you're touting some mythical contact you might have had with some people that might have been 'left-wing' on some other site?

Just checking.

Not exactly.

People start talking about McCain's record at Annapolis... I ask when Obama is going to release his own records for comparison... turns into "you just don't want a black president".

Start asking about contradictions between Obama's statements... turns into accusations of racism.

Start talking about reactions to misstatements during the campaign (c'mon, if McCain had talked about '57 states' people would have been screaming that he's unfit for office)... turns into accusations of racism.
They just turned into accusations of racism...by magic...? I suspect there are some dots you didn't connect for us.

The face-to-face occurrence was somebody at work who didn't know my political preferences going off about the only people who support McCain are just trying to keep "old white guys" in office, and "would never vote for a black man."
So, somebody expressing a negative opinion of their own without knowing anything about you, like your political preferences which implies they didn't know which candidate you were backing, is an accusation against you...how?

Excuse me Sir, but he had a 91% approval rating. Are you telling me that this astronomical number was possible without liberals?

*in German voice a la Family Guy*
They were on vacation!

But I know I was called many names during the campaign for questioning the background or platform of candidates such as Ron Paul, John McCain, and Sarah Palin.
I believe you.

Perhaps that is so. Although calling one's opponents childish isn't likely to encourage civility on their part, is it?
Probably not. But I haven't noticed that civility on my part has any effect either.

Personally, I think neither the Left nor the Right bears all the blame for this cultural animosity.
Quite true.

*in German voice a la Family Guy*
They were on vacation!"Shut up, they were all on vacation! *insert Hitler salute and rant here*"

They just turned into accusations of racism...by magic...? I suspect there are some dots you didn't connect for us.
This long after the fact, I don't recall the original threads. They were not made immediately, granted.

So, somebody expressing a negative opinion of their own without knowing anything about you, like your political preferences which implies they didn't know which candidate you were backing, is an accusation against you...how?
Set theory.

This woman defined the set of McCain supporters as racist.
I was an element of that set.

I don't know, Post Liminality. I can absolutely see the Republicans nominating an individual for President who is so far right that only a tiny fraction of the country supports him, causing their party to dissolve over a single election cycle. I think we saw a lot of people who were so sick of the Republicans just this past election who took it upon themselves to vote for the man, not the party.

It could happen your way (which would still excite me, but less so those non-polisci persons) but I can see it happening my way too.



Historically, party realignments have often been pretty dramatic. Its a really cool subject, if you ask me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election#United_States

Consider what it takes to instigate a sudden realignment, though. I don't study domestic politics, my forte is analyzing international power relations, so my depth of knowledge in regards to US party politics is nothing to lend credence to, but looking at that wiki it immediately strikes me that there is a pattern to see (at least superficially and, again, upon a cursory glance). The first set of realigning elections are characteristic of a system coming to maturity while the later realignments are characteristic of a populace facing security issues (my personal belief is that most political actions occur from security dynamics so I might be biased).

Now, while the current economic situation is worrying, I don't think it yet presents the level of insecurity necessary for a major and sudden realignment. I'd especially point out that the setting of such a foundation is likely to be drawn out and extended, unlike previous examples, so explosive political events are not something I would personally predict.

I had a few more things to say but these sleeping pills are kicking in so my brain is beginning to dull. =\

So... you're touting some mythical contact you might have had with some people that might have been 'left-wing' on some other site?

Just checking.

Yep.

Sorry, I didn't know that only this site was considered legitimate. I'll go now.

This woman defined the set of McCain supporters as racist.
I was an element of that set.

Given that McCain supporters did some... pretty insane things... and said some seriously stupid racist shit (and McCain aided them, even once he started trying to downplay it), there was something of a stereotyping of McCain's support. But why would you self identify with that? Surely you'd say something like "yeah, that crazy old lady that was talking about him being an ay-rab... I'm not like her"... no?

"Shut up, they were all on vacation! *insert Hitler salute and rant here*"

Thank you. I knew I was going to fuck that quote up. :(

So... you're touting some mythical contact you might have had with some people that might have been 'left-wing' on some other site?

Just checking.

Given that McCain supporters did some... pretty insane things... and said some seriously stupid racist shit (and McCain aided them, even once he started trying to downplay it), there was something of a stereotyping of McCain's support. But why would you self identify with that? Surely you'd say something like "yeah, that crazy old lady that was talking about him being an ay-rab... I'm not like her"... no?

Who cares? According to you, that event was just "mythical" anyway.

Yep.

Sorry, I didn't know that only this site was considered legitimate. I'll go now.

It's more a matter of launching an accusation of bias and immaturity... at people on a board you have maybe a dozen posts on, rather than at a credible audience.

This long after the fact, I don't recall the original threads. They were not made immediately, granted.


Set theory.

This woman defined the set of McCain supporters as racist.
I was an element of that set.
Uh-huh. But actually what you originally said didn't really happen, did it? Nobody called you a racist just for questioning Obama's background or platform, did they? One was just talking in general, not about you, and you just applied her words to yourself. And with the others, there was more to the story than you let on.

Who cares? According to you, that event was just "mythical" anyway.

Sure it is. I don't believe anything I see on the internet till I see some pretty damn convincing evidence. "This thing happened to me once, but not here..." isn't exactly sending my spider-senses into comatose overload.

Now, while the current economic situation is worrying, I don't think it yet presents the level of insecurity necessary for a major and sudden realignment.
The main reason I think it will be sudden is because of the dividingness of the Republican platform. I think they will nominate someone who stands for positions that most who identify themselves as Republicans either don't stand for, or don't care enough about, and these former Republicans will either ally themselves with the Democrats until some entrepreneur comes along and finds a way to gather their votes up into a block big enough to be called a party or they will enter themselves behind a third-party candidate (the same entrepreneur, just a little less patient). The event this will most resemble is the Whig Party collapse in 1856, followed by the election in 1860.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)#Death_throes.2C_1852.E2.80.931856 (Think of the religious issues as slavery, in this example)

I think one of the main reasons Obama was able to win this past election so handily is that the Republicans weren't able to rally their base with the same traditionally Republican issues of abortion, gay marriage, etc. The country was looking past these issues out of necessity, but in the future I can see at least part of the Republican base growing tired of these mainstays and wanting more from their party - something it won't be willing or forward-thinking enough to offer.

Yep.

Sorry, I didn't know that only this site was considered legitimate. I'll go now.
Well, you know, just like you did not appreciate being tarred with the broad brush of that woman's scorn for McCain supporters, we don't really appreciate having our comments judged by the actions of some other people who are not here, on some other board which is not named, in some past conversation which is not linked. In keeping with the traditions of NS General, I think we would prefer it if you would either present the examples of what you are talking about so we can examine them -- whether it is the media or another forum or whatever (check the forum rules first, though) -- or else restrict your comments to what happens in this forum.

She can work in the new accountant position that my dad just created for me! :D

Still, I needed to vent. :p

Can I be Vice-President of junkets to the Carribean?:D

I wish they would pass a law against the use of logical fallacies by political pundits.

Wouldn't that be nice?

I still maintain that had the media shown some balance, that McCain would have had a fighting chance in the 2008 elections. Instead, the media coverage was wall to wall Obama and McCain had to fight to get a word in.

...and I still maintain that the media was doing McCain a huge fucking favor. If people had heard more about his actual policies, the margin of defeat would have been even higher.

Stuff like THIS (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=568000) and THIS (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=555712) should have sealed McCains fate back in the summer...instead the media turned a blind eye so that there would still be a race...so they could continue making money.

Which is horseshit.

'The media' isn't a hivemind. Fox counts as part of the media, and Fox not only has a bias, but an agenda. MSNBC manages to program both left-wing and right-wing pundits (by American standards, of course... I doubt they ever get actual leftwing pundits). Some of the media leans one way, some leans another way.

Fox is the only one of the television media that isn't biased towards the left. All the others have a left wing bias, and most media (except talkback radio and some of the blogosphere) has a left wing bias.

No - the media, collectively, started turning on the Bush regime when he started screwing up. Indeed, when it got to the point that THAT regime were defending torture, explaining why it was okay to suspend constitutional rights, and defending the in-and-out war that had been grinding on for half a decade, and been found to be not only illegal, but based on lies... the only parts of the media that DIDN'T turn on the Bush regime were the parts with an agenda more pronounced than their desire to be populist. Mainly Fox.

He started screwing up after the media turned. It was when you saw dozens of hostages being paraded around on the news that it was reasonably clear that the media had turned. Abu Gharib, et. al. didn't come out until after that.

Irrespective, they turned on the Iraq War and then the population started going against the war as well.

Perhaps the left-wing media in New Zealand isn't reporting this, but the U.S. economy is pretty fucking bad all over. See, e.g., link (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm), link (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/glance.htm).

McCain was simply out of touch with reality when he said that.

EDIT: If the media has "always had a left-wing bias," why did they initially agree with the Bush Administration about invading Iraq based on what we know now (and some thought then) were lies? It seems the media is only "left-wing," when reality disagrees with you.

Of the 30 companies that were on the Dow Jones Industrial Average in January 2007, only three of them have hit major financial difficulties; AIG, Citibank and General Motors - the other 27 are still going along fine. I haven't heard of any major bankruptcies coming out of sectors outside the finance & property industries except for the Big Three.

While I'll agree that businesses are having slightly tough times and that unemployment has gone up, we haven't seen businesses keel over en masse.

With regard to Iraq, a decent proportion of the Democrats were also backing the war - initially

Yes, but then Biden was not unusual - Palin was the first Republican woman Vice-Presidental candidate.

In other words, the republican party is *still* 24 years behind.

Thank you. I knew I was going to fuck that quote up. :(I'm not even sure I got it right.

Can I be Vice-President of junkets to the Carribean?:DI am not sure. Let me ask....

What do you think will become of such bile? Can it be healed?

No, it can't be "healed."

Democrats had to choke down 8 years of Dubya, and conservatives are just going to have to choke down a few years of Obama.

I don't believe there is any remote chance that real-world improvements in the country will win over conservatives. If Obama balanced the budget, won every war currently going on anywhere in the world, and successfully invited God Almighty Himself to come to dinner at the White House, conservatives still wouldn't be prepared to do anything but cry over how Obambi is ruining Amurka.


Are we doomed to a constant culture war for the forseeable future?
Absolutely.

There are several non-negotiable issues in play right now, and conservatives are simply on the losing side of history. Until they're done losing, there will be a culture war over those issues.

The good news is that conservatives are going to lose within about a generation. I'm not saying this because I can see the future, but because I've read my history. The conservatives who oppose equality for gay citizens are going to end up in the same place as those who opposed legal equality for blacks. The conservatives who oppose abortion are going to end up in the same place as those who opposed legalizing contraception. They'll bitch and moan and annoy the fuck out of everyone for a generation or so, and then their kids will start voting, and by that point the kids will be so goddam sick of their parents' old issues that they'll come up with a new culture war to fight.

How dare gays and gay rights activists be upset that Obama chose a man who compared homosexuality to pedophelia to speak at his inaugeration?!?

Umm, because those same gays likely claimed to support Obama's claims to want to end ridiculous partisanship? I'm not a big fan of Rick Warren myself (Purpose Driven Life was more preachy than I felt it should've been), but Obama, I think, took a firm step forward by attempting to make a friend out of an enemy. Also, recall perhaps that Obama himself opposes gay marriage.

I didn't say that Rick Warren is correct in his views, or that Obama was supporting an anti-gay agenda. Obama was, against all my expectations, actually taking steps to reduce partisan division, and the liberals got partisan on him. Maybe if liberals stopped being so intolerant of other intolerant people they could really reach better. It's why I could never call myself a liberal, the idea that they are so intolerant, in the name of tolerance... the hypocrisy is dumbfounding. But, whether intolerant conservatives, or intolerant liberals, people will still want to be intolerant, their justifications are merely different.

Unfortunitally, the right wingers are just the loudest and vote the most.

Lol, it's convenient to ignore all the multitudes of crazy liberals when you are a liberal yourself I guess.

Umm, because those same gays likely claimed to support Obama's claims to want to end ridiculous partisanship?
Really?

Honestly, do you think so?

Because pretty much every gay person and gay rights supporter I know is 100% behind total scorched-earth partisanship at this point.

We want Obama to completely and utterly ignore everything the right wing has to say about sex and marriage. We don't want him to 'work together' with the people who say that we are second-class citizens. We don't want Obama to 'reach out' to the people who believe it's okay to take away our rights.

Personally, the #1 thing that made me NOT want to vote for Obama was all his talk of bipartisanship. In America, "bipartisanship" means "Republicans get everything they want, Democrats politely thank them and ask if they might have another slap sir."

No, it can't be "healed."

Democrats had to choke down 8 years of Dubya, and conservatives are just going to have to choke down a few years of Obama.

I don't believe there is any remote chance that real-world improvements in the country will win over conservatives. If Obama balanced the budget, won every war currently going on anywhere in the world, and successfully invited God Almighty Himself to come to dinner at the White House, conservatives still wouldn't be prepared to do anything but cry over how Obambi is ruining Amurka.
I agree. There is no cure for egotism, and frankly, US politics today is nothing but ego-tripping. "Party politics", "identity politics", it's all just a game of "king of the hill" in which one gang fights for bragging rights over all the others, and fuck whatever else is going on -- wars, economies, whatever. Even the alternative, fringe parties that some people are so in love with are the same. It's all "What about me? What about mine? When do I get to be the center of attention and tell everyone what to do?"

Only a very few on the rightwing are truly arguing against Obama's policies on philosophical grounds. The majority, from the man in the street all the way up to spotlight junkies like Boehner, are just going to denounce and obstruct anything and everything because it's not their party doing it, and for no other reason.

If you hope to heal an illness, you first have to diagnose it correctly. Sadly, for this sickness, there is no cure.


Absolutely.

There are several non-negotiable issues in play right now, and conservatives are simply on the losing side of history. Until they're done losing, there will be a culture war over those issues.

The good news is that conservatives are going to lose within about a generation. I'm not saying this because I can see the future, but because I've read my history. The conservatives who oppose equality for gay citizens are going to end up in the same place as those who opposed legal equality for blacks. The conservatives who oppose abortion are going to end up in the same place as those who opposed legalizing contraception. They'll bitch and moan and annoy the fuck out of everyone for a generation or so, and then their kids will start voting, and by that point the kids will be so goddam sick of their parents' old issues that they'll come up with a new culture war to fight.
I agree again. It's the whole history of the US. We've been doing this annoying dance for over 200 years.

It boils down to this: The USA is a politically and socially progressive nation. The end.

But it is infected with ego-itis, which means that this kind of warfare -- whether it's culture war or party war or generational war or whatever -- is going to happen on every single issue every single fucking time, as every group, every party, every individual seeks to hog the spotlight and make the story be all about them. Whatever anyone proposes, someone is going to fight against it, to the death if need be, no matter how ridiculous, as long as the media are there to watch.

But in the end -- sometimes after decades of bitter and brutal hostility -- the progressive idea wins, because ultimately what progressiveness offers is what every American person wants for themselves. It helps that implementing progressive ideas that help others also gives an ego-boosting injection of smug self-aggrandizement, too.

Two steps forward, one step back -- it's how Americans do everything.

Personally, I believe this is why Americans have always been in love with the idea of the frontier, of moving, of being a rolling stone, an explorer. It stems from the understandable need to just get the fuck away from each other's annoying bullshit-spewing asses.

(:) It's the opening of Moby Dick, when the narrator tells us how he decided to go to sea again because he had again reached that point of fed-upness where he was filled with the urge to just walk down the street randomly hitting people out of general annoyance with his fellow man. :))

No, it can't be "healed."

Democrats had to choke down 8 years of Dubya, and conservatives are just going to have to choke down a few years of Obama.

I don't believe there is any remote chance that real-world improvements in the country will win over conservatives. If Obama balanced the budget, won every war currently going on anywhere in the world, and successfully invited God Almighty Himself to come to dinner at the White House, conservatives still wouldn't be prepared to do anything but cry over how Obambi is ruining Amurka.


Absolutely.

There are several non-negotiable issues in play right now, and conservatives are simply on the losing side of history. Until they're done losing, there will be a culture war over those issues.

The good news is that conservatives are going to lose within about a generation. I'm not saying this because I can see the future, but because I've read my history. The conservatives who oppose equality for gay citizens are going to end up in the same place as those who opposed legal equality for blacks. The conservatives who oppose abortion are going to end up in the same place as those who opposed legalizing contraception. They'll bitch and moan and annoy the fuck out of everyone for a generation or so, and then their kids will start voting, and by that point the kids will be so goddam sick of their parents' old issues that they'll come up with a new culture war to fight.

For conservatives, read "social conservatives". This must be a trans-Atlantic difference, because I'm certain British conservatives against gay and ethnic rights are bloody rare, and non-existent in my generation.

Really?

Honestly, do you think so?

Because pretty much every gay person and gay rights supporter I know is 100% behind total scorched-earth partisanship at this point.

We want Obama to completely and utterly ignore everything the right wing has to say about sex and marriage. We don't want him to 'work together' with the people who say that we are second-class citizens. We don't want Obama to 'reach out' to the people who believe it's okay to take away our rights.

Personally, the #1 thing that made me NOT want to vote for Obama was all his talk of bipartisanship. In America, "bipartisanship" means "Republicans get everything they want, Democrats politely thank them and ask if they might have another slap sir."

This is hilarious, and inaccurate. What Obama's vew of bipartisanship meant was ending the unnecessary hostility between camps. Or hostility, such as yours, against what? Moderates who support gay marriage? I support gay marriage, I have heard (though, honestly, through rumour) that the vote will be coming to MN, and I'll be there.

I'm also pro-life, now, when I say pro-life, I don't mean anti-women. I simply feel that personhood, and inherent rights begin at conception, it is a personal moral view that is effectively subjective without any proof or evidence to suggest one whay or the other.

Bottle, thank you, you exactly are why I am a moderate, you hate the intolerant, making your faux-tolerance a joke, I would style myself a liberal, where it not for the majority of liberals I know who act in the exact manner you do.

I understand that people oppose gay marriage, and I understand why, I used to myself. I disagree with them, and will vote in support of gay marriage, but do I hate them? Nope. Do I loathe them? Nope.

Intolerance, Bottle, is ended through tolerance, and education. Deliberation, and mediation. Intolerance, Bottle, is not ended through intolerance.

For conservatives, read "social conservatives". This must be a trans-Atlantic difference, because I'm certain British conservatives against gay and ethnic rights are bloody rare, and non-existent in my generation.
Sigh. Yes, considering that this thread is specifically about US politics, you may take all terms to be as used in US politics. :rolleyes:

This is hilarious, and inaccurate. What Obama's vew of bipartisanship meant was ending the unnecessary hostility between camps. Or hostility, such as yours, against what? Moderates who support gay marriage? I support gay marriage, I have heard (though, honestly, through rumour) that the vote will be coming to MN, and I'll be there.

I'm also pro-life, now, when I say pro-life, I don't mean anti-women. I simply feel that personhood, and inherent rights begin at conception, it is a personal moral view that is effectively subjective without any proof or evidence to suggest one whay or the other.

Bottle, thank you, you exactly are why I am a moderate, you hate the intolerant, making your faux-tolerance a joke, I would style myself a liberal, where it not for the majority of liberals I know who act in the exact manner you do.

I understand that people oppose gay marriage, and I understand why, I used to myself. I disagree with them, and will vote in support of gay marriage, but do I hate them? Nope. Do I loathe them? Nope.

Intolerance, Bottle, is ended through tolerance, and education. Deliberation, and mediation. Intolerance, Bottle, is not ended through intolerance.
You're funny.

You said GAYS thought a certain way about bipartisanship.

Bottle countered that by saying GAYS don't think a certain way about bipartisanship.

You come back and tell us all about how YOU think about bipartisanship and bunch of other stuff.

Are YOU GAY? No? Well, then you are completely irrelevant to Bottle's point, aren't you? And then you really failed to counter it at all, didn't you?

I also enjoy how you brag about how tolerant and open-minded you are while in the same post denouncing, insulting and ridiculing liberals. Telling us all about how you'd love to call yourself one of us if only we weren't such assholes. Yeah, that's a way to reach across the aisle. Very inviting to free and open mutual exchanges of views. :rolleyes: One who specializes in satire is called a satirist. What is the word for one who crafts monuments to irony? "Ironist" doesn't seem to work.

Sigh. Yes, considering that this thread is specifically about US politics, you may take all terms to be as used in US politics. :rolleyes:

My apologies then, it just takes a certain degree of adjustment to identify an American, religiously motivated conservative to the British usage of "Conservative".

For conservatives, read "social conservatives". This must be a trans-Atlantic difference, because I'm certain British conservatives against gay and ethnic rights are bloody rare, and non-existent in my generation.
Good point, and an important correction.

American conservatives are a special breed, and do not much resemble the conservatives of other nations.

For one thing, the small government ideology that is part of the definition of "conservative" has been completely absent from American conservativism for my entire lifetime. American conservatives seek to remove government from any economic role, while seeking to expand it into pretty much every other area of life. They also like to scream "STATES' RIGHTS" as if having invasive state governments instead of federal government is somehow the same thing as having small government.

Conservativism is also supposed to be about preserving the existing culture and status quo, but American conservatives seek to create and enforce an entirely new status quo. For instance, the term "traditional family" is used to refer to the nuclear family, a family structure that has only existed for about 50 years and which has not been the traditional family form for most of the history of the USA.

Good point, and an important correction.

American conservatives are a special breed, and do not much resemble the conservatives of other nations.

For one thing, the small government ideology that is part of the definition of "conservative" has been completely absent from American conservativism for my entire lifetime. American conservatives seek to remove government from any economic role, while seeking to expand it into pretty much every other area of life. They also like to scream "STATES' RIGHTS" as if having invasive state governments instead of federal government is somehow the same thing as having small government.

Conservativism is also supposed to be about preserving the existing culture and status quo, but American conservatives seek to create and enforce an entirely new status quo. For instance, the term "traditional family" is used to refer to the nuclear family, a family structure that has only existed for about 50 years and which has not been the traditional family form for most of the history of the USA.

I do find that American conservatives take a little adjustment when encountered; perhaps it is a result of the relatively benign post-war decades the US has enjoyed against Europe, but they do indeed seem far more retrospective, and less inclined simply to conserve.

You're funny.

You said GAYS thought a certain way about bipartisanship.

Bottle countered that by saying GAYS don't think a certain way about bipartisanship.

You come back and tell us all about how YOU think about bipartisanship and bunch of other stuff.

Are YOU GAY? No? Well, then you are completely irrelevant to Bottle's point, aren't you? And then you really failed to counter it at all, didn't you?

I also enjoy how you brag about how tolerant and open-minded you are while in the same post denouncing, insulting and ridiculing liberals. Telling us all about how you'd love to call yourself one of us if only we weren't such assholes. Yeah, that's a way to reach across the aisle. Very inviting to free and open mutual exchanges of views. :rolleyes:

Actually, Bottle responded to my saying that liberals cried out against Obama's selection of Rick Warren, I didn't mention gays initially at all. Moreover, I did not once ever say that all liberals are terrible or bad people, if you read again carefully, you will note that I specified most liberals I know. Meaning I have made a fair assessment based on people I know. Yes, conservatives can be just as, if not more intolerant often, however, they do not as often hide behind the veil of tolerance to jsutify their intolerance.

I personally know a lot of liberals who attempt to justify their hatred for others by the use of the word tolerance. I cannot personally abide this hypocrisy, same is the reason I no longer style myself conservative.

I'm merely trying to point out that people in general tend to be hating, and intolerant, and that liberals are not inherently better than conservative, I have seen a lot of hate on both sides.

But you didn't really read my posts, so of course you didn't really get any of that.

This is hilarious, and inaccurate. What Obama's vew of bipartisanship meant was ending the unnecessary hostility between camps. Or hostility, such as yours, against what? Moderates who support gay marriage? I support gay marriage, I have heard (though, honestly, through rumour) that the vote will be coming to MN, and I'll be there.

If you think it's unnecessary for me to be hostile toward the people who want to take away my rights, then there's really not much to be said to you.

Frankly, if you're "moderate" on the subject of legal equality for all citizens of this country, then yes, I'm hostile toward you. That attitude is disgraceful.


I'm also pro-life, now, when I say pro-life, I don't mean anti-women. I simply feel that personhood, and inherent rights begin at conception, it is a personal moral view that is effectively subjective without any proof or evidence to suggest one whay or the other.

That's nice. If you were content to let your personal views dictate your personal choices, we'd have no beef. The moment you decide that your personal morality should be forced onto my body, you're taking direct hostile action against me, and if you want to cry when I respond in kind then feel free. I'm not remotely ashamed or embarrassed about sticking up for myself and defending my rights.


Bottle, thank you, you exactly are why I am a moderate, you hate the intolerant, making your faux-tolerance a joke, I would style myself a liberal, where it not for the majority of liberals I know who act in the exact manner you do.

If you're saying that people like me are why you don't identify as liberal, then...GOOD.

Because you aren't. If I can help you to be honest, then I consider it a good deed for the day.


I understand that people oppose gay marriage, and I understand why, I used to myself. I disagree with them, and will vote in support of gay marriage, but do I hate them? Nope. Do I loathe them? Nope.

I'm sorry that you aren't capable of understanding the difference between hostility toward an ideology and direct personal hatred of individuals. I'm sorry that you think my lack of patience with homophobia, sexism, and racism means that I hate any individuals who disagree with me.

But, frankly, those are your hangups and your problems. I'm sorry-regretful, but not remotely sorry-apologetic about all that.


Intolerance, Bottle, is ended through tolerance, and education. Deliberation, and mediation. Intolerance, Bottle, is not ended through intolerance.
Ahh yes, the classic "You're being intolerant of my intolerance" gambit.

Is anybody still fooled by this crap?

My apologies then, it just takes a certain degree of adjustment to identify an American, religiously motivated conservative to the British usage of "Conservative".
I can understand that. I also have to constantly check which country the news is talking about and how that country defines terms. A UK Liberal, for instance, is nothing at all like a US liberal. But the OP of the thread was kind of a tip-off about which jargon set we'd be using.

We've had references to Obama as "The Dark Lord" and the election as Fort Sumter.

So what. I like strong partisanship.

"The Dark Lord" is actually a cool nickname (and a lot cooler than "the idiotic shrub"). Just imagine Obama with a black cloak and a red lightsaber.
And, if by Fort Sumter we mean that busheviks are about to leave the USA, well, I think that the rest of the USA (D & R alike) won't cry too much, as they're currently busy with more serious issues, like economy.

For one thing, the small government ideology that is part of the definition of "conservative" has been completely absent from American conservativism for my entire lifetime. American conservatives seek to remove government from any economic role, while seeking to expand it into pretty much every other area of life. They also like to scream "STATES' RIGHTS" as if having invasive state governments instead of federal government is somehow the same thing as having small government.

Yeah, I don't like this too much, I'm kind of a small government guy myself. I would like to see a bit more of a genuine push from American Conservatives, rather than the generic blaming of liberals for wanting big government.

Then again that would involve trusting a politician to act in a manner that I agree with, and I honestly haven't seen a whole lot in that regards....

I can understand that. I also have to constantly check which country the news is talking about and how that country defines terms. A UK Liberal, for instance, is nothing at all like a US liberal. But the OP of the thread was kind of a tip-off about which jargon set we'd be using.

I still find US conservatives bloody alien; take the poster, whose name I forget, claiming that Obama risks bringing divine retribution on the USA.

Actually, Bottle responded to my saying that liberals cried out against Obama's selection of Rick Warren, I didn't mention gays initially at all. Moreover, I did not once ever say that all liberals are terrible or bad people, if you read again carefully, you will note that I specified most liberals I know. Meaning I have made a fair assessment based on people I know. Yes, conservatives can be just as, if not more intolerant often, however, they do not as often hide behind the veil of tolerance to jsutify their intolerance.

I personally know a lot of liberals who attempt to justify their hatred for others by the use of the word tolerance. I cannot personally abide this hypocrisy, same is the reason I no longer style myself conservative.

I'm merely trying to point out that people in general tend to be hating, and intolerant, and that liberals are not inherently better than conservative, I have seen a lot of hate on both sides.

But you didn't really read my posts, so of course you didn't really get any of that.

I guess I should thank you, DT, for being a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

This is also a great example of the false middle that is held up like a beacon these days. There's this weird idea that every issue has two equally valid sides, and that the best thing to do is find the point midway between them as a "compromise."

I know, I know, it's ridiculous. But you can see how DT believes it, right?

That's how it works in America these days, though. If I'm sitting here saying, "I think that I am a full legal citizen of the United States and should have the same legal rights as other citizens," and there's a person over there saying, "I think Bottle should not have equal legal rights as a citizen of the USA," then what I'm supposed to do is COMPROMISE with that person.

Pretty redonk, no? And that's what Obama is being told to "reach out to."

So what. I like strong partisanship.

"The Dark Lord" is actually a cool nickname (and a lot cooler than "the idiotic shrub"). Just imagine Obama with a black cloak and a red lightsaber.
And, if by Fort Sumter we mean that busheviks are about to leave the USA, well, I think that the rest of the USA (D & R alike) won't cry too much, as they're currently busy with more serious issues, like economy.

I think that Obama should where a black full-hooded cloak...

Ok, I'm a bit of a medievalist, so I think capes and cloaks are pretty cool... but seriously, full cloack, black? Though imagine the fuss cons would raise about the new Oval Office dress code, lol.

I still find US conservatives bloody alien; take the poster, whose name I forget, claiming that Obama risks bringing divine retribution on the USA.

That seems an outlandish claim... but who'd want to risk it? :tongue:

Actually, Bottle responded to my saying that liberals cried out against Obama's selection of Rick Warren, I didn't mention gays initially at all.
No, shit. And then the rest of the conversation was as I said it was.

Moreover, I did not once ever say that all liberals are terrible or bad people, if you read again carefully, you will note that I specified most liberals I know. Meaning I have made a fair assessment based on people I know. Yes, conservatives can be just as, if not more intolerant often, however, they do not as often hide behind the veil of tolerance to jsutify their intolerance.

I personally know a lot of liberals who attempt to justify their hatred for others by the use of the word tolerance. I cannot personally abide this hypocrisy, same is the reason I no longer style myself conservative.

I'm merely trying to point out that people in general tend to be hating, and intolerant, and that liberals are not inherently better than conservative, I have seen a lot of hate on both sides.

But you didn't really read my posts, so of course you didn't really get any of that.
You can't stand liberal hypocrisy...because it distracts from your own hypocrisy, perhaps?

You have done nothing in this thread but insult liberals, liberal policies, and the very idea of liberalism, all the while complaining that liberals aren't nice enough to you.

Your claimed evidence for what you call "multitudes of crazed liberals" is a few vague references to anecdotal stories of your own that you don't even bother to tell us outright. In other words, you offer no basis for your negative remarks about liberals at all. You give us nothing but apparently unprovoked hostility, yet you claim to be the moderate and reasonable one.

You heap scorn on us and in the same breath tell us how, if only we'd bend over even more to please you, you might decide to bless us with the great compliment of you calling yourself one of us.

Yeah, you know what? Don't bother. If you ever called yourself a liberal, I'd have to think of something else to call myself. And that is because of your manners, not your political views.

I guess I should thank you, DT, for being a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

This is also a great example of the false middle that is held up like a beacon these days. There's this weird idea that every issue has two equally valid sides, and that the best thing to do is find the point midway between them as a "compromise."

I know, I know, it's ridiculous. But you can see how DT believes it, right?

That's how it works in America these days, though. If I'm sitting here saying, "I think that I am a full legal citizen of the United States and should have the same legal rights as other citizens," and there's a person over there saying, "I think Bottle should not have equal legal rights as a citizen of the USA," then what I'm supposed to do is COMPROMISE with that person.

Pretty redonk, no? And that's what Obama is being told to "reach out to."

Again, I have to correct a misunderstanding. I am not advocation compromising on personal rights... though if you can cite where I said that feel free.

I said I support ending the unnecessary hostility. Nothing more, nothing less. Why do people need to get into bickering matches over political stuff, debate, discuss, sure, then bring it to the polls.

I don't think that every issue merits a compromise, not at all... perhaps you didn't read the several parts where I said that I support gay marriage, rather than some compromise... and I do actually disagree with Obama on gay marriage, he is walking a foolish compromise of "My religion says no marriage, so lets settle for civil unions" I felt that way (in my transition) for about a week, then gradually realized that if 'civil union' and 'marriage' are the same in everything except name, what does it matter at all what we call it?

Ideally we should call all legal unions civil unions, and use 'marriage' as a more spiritual (not necessarily 'religious') ceremony, and connection that would be used frequently in conjunction with a civil unification. Problematically, such a system would jsut cause more headaches than it would be worth, and if it's all marriage anywhay, who really cares what we call it?

As said, I am not about compromise, but rather bringing the parties together at least to understanding, so we can end the needless hostility.

You realize classifying conservatives as a whole is not logical, correct?

I'm a Libertarian Conservative, and I personally believe Obama was a bad choice, why?

Socialism, thats why. Obama is a Socialist plain and clear, We don't need a larger government that helps everyone and controls all, We need a smaller government.

Lower taxes, Stronger military, More individual freedoms and rights, An example of a perfect president would be Michael Badnarik, Ron Paul, or even Bob Barr.

"Spreading the wealth" and free healthcare for all, starts sounding more like a "Lets all love eachother and sing kumbaya in a circle" communist regime every day, Before you know it it will end up being something like this. - "Thats not your house, it's our house, and we are letting you use it."
No property means no rights, and no rights means tyranny has alas won again.

"Thats not your car, it's our car, and we are letting you borrow it.
Good ol' Socialism, stripping every working man of his property and possessions in order to pay for some lazy shitbird who wont get a job.

Barack Obama is NOT a socialist! Being in support of social programs and being in support of a COMPLETE nationalization and federal control of the ENTIRE economy are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! Not a damn thing I've read on Obama - from the mainstream of EITHER side - suggests he favors the latter.

No, shit. And then the rest of the conversation was as I said it was.


You can't stand liberal hypocrisy...because it distracts from your own hypocrisy, perhaps?

You have done nothing in this thread but insult liberals, liberal policies, and the very idea of liberalism, all the while complaining that liberals aren't nice enough to you.

Your claimed evidence for what you call "multitudes of crazed liberals" is a few vague references to anecdotal stories of your own that you don't even bother to tell us outright. In other words, you offer no basis for your negative remarks about liberals at all. You give us nothing but apparently unprovoked hostility, yet you claim to be the moderate and reasonable one.

You heap scorn on us and in the same breath tell us how, if only we'd bend over even more to please you, you might decide to bless us with the great compliment of you calling yourself one of us.

Yeah, you know, what? Don't bother. If you ever called yourself a liberal, I'd have to think of something else to call myself. And that is because of your manners, not your political views.

I can add one more personal experience of liberal hatred.

I don't hate liberals, and I don't expect them to change. I am merely trying to say "hey look, let's change things for the better, not change things for the same."

I don't want to call myself a liberal, nor would I want liberalism to conform itself to me. I have done quite a bit more than simply heap blame on all liberals, please, be reasonable, you are flaming/flamebaiting, and I don't much appreciate it.

Barack Obama is NOT a socialist! Being in support of social programs and being in support of a COMPLETE nationalization and federal control of the ENTIRE economy are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! Not a damn thing I've read on Obama - from the mainstream of EITHER side - suggests he favors the latter.

Nope, Obama is a socialist because something something Dark Lord, and evilness.

He is more socialist... maybe that counts? :tongue:

Barack Obama is NOT a socialist! Being in support of social programs and being in support of a COMPLETE nationalization and federal control of the ENTIRE economy are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! Not a damn thing I've read on Obama - from the mainstream of EITHER side - suggests he favors the latter.

Capitalising is neither big, nor clever. Grow up.

Capitalising is neither big, nor clever. Grow up.

IT CAN BE BOTH!!!!1!

(jk)

Yeah, italics are pretty much the way to go.

I can add one more personal experience of liberal hatred.

I don't hate liberals, and I don't expect them to change. I am merely trying to say "hey look, let's change things for the better, not change things for the same."

I don't want to call myself a liberal, nor would I want liberalism to conform itself to me. I have done quite a bit more than simply heap blame on all liberals, please, be reasonable, you are flaming/flamebaiting, and I don't much appreciate it.
Oh, I see what you did there. This is your MO: You behave in a boorish and hostile manner, and then when one of the people you are targeting with your bad manners calls you on it, you call it "personal hatred." A nice little "help, help, I'm being repressed!" act you've got there.

Well, you fail, because unlike some liberals, I don't want everyone to like me. There are some people in the world who, if they said nice things about me, I would think I was doing something wrong. People who play little set-up games like yours are on that list. So you can go run around and paint me as a "crazed liberal" full of "personal hatred" against you, if you like. I will take it as a compliment.

By the way, if you think that was "personal hatred," you must be pretty sensitive. Of course, I guess you'd have to set the bar pretty low to pull off your little trick, but still -- you have no idea what it's like when I hate someone. I don't hate you. I just think you're just another of the eogtistical little attention junkies that infest the US like ants at a picnic. You're just something to pick out of my salad and toss aside.

IT CAN BE BOTH!!!!1!

(jk)

Yeah, italics are pretty much the way to go.

They're less like being shouted at by the token pub/bar drunk I feel.

I think that Obama should where a black full-hooded cloak...

Ok, I'm a bit of a medievalist, so I think capes and cloaks are pretty cool... but seriously, full cloack, black? Though imagine the fuss cons would raise about the new Oval Office dress code, lol.

He'll be the anti-Calrissian.

Oh, I see what you did there. This is your MO: You behave in a boorish and hostile manner, and then when one of the people you are targeting with your bad manners calls you on it, you call it "personal hatred." A nice little "help, help, I'm being repressed!" act you've got there.

Well, you fail, because unlike some liberals, I don't want everyone to like me. There are some people in the world who, if they said nice things about me, I would think I was doing something wrong. People who play little set-up games like yours are on that list. So you can go run around and paint me as a "crazed liberal" full of "personal hatred" against you, if you like. I will take it as a compliment.

By the way, if you think that was "personal hatred," you must be pretty sensitive. Of course, I guess you'd have to set the bar pretty low to pull off your little trick, but still -- you have no idea what it's like when I hate someone. I don't hate you. I just think you're just another of the eogtistical little attention junkies that infest the US like ants at a picnic. You're just something to pick out of my salad and toss aside.

I apoligize for the mistake, I never meant to 'play' a game, in fact, I believe that since you started posting, I've been trying to defend myself.

You sought me out, and I explained a too-vague post. You continued to misunderstand, so I explained it again. You again misunderstood, I can only assume you are now doing so to vindicate your bad manners towards me, and that is certainly your choice to make.

I am merely trying to explain how I feel, and you attack me. I assure you that none of this is my fault after my many explanations, you have not once tried to approach my posting, or opinions with any semblance of an attempt to understand, or read what I'm saying. You would rather stick with that first judgement you made, and refuse to try to understand my explanations.

You are right, I do not know what it is to be hated, though you have expressed marked, and unceasing hostility no matter how politely I try to explain my views, I apologize for misunderstanding you hostility.

He'll be the anti-Calrissian.

Whoa. Best. Idea. Ever. Why couldn't he have made Billy Dee Williams a member of the Cabinet? Maybe he could've been in charge of the Intergalactic Space Pimp Department, or whatever.

That, or like... a boxing match between Obama, and Billy Dee Williams... though Obama looks pretty fit, and Williams has got to be getting on now right?

Both great ideas.

They're less like being shouted at by the token pub/bar drunk I feel.

Lol. I use them if I really REALLY need to emphasize a point on the regional messageboard or something... but if I can get italicz I ALWAYS go for them instead.

Yes, I caps'd it for comic purposes.

They're less like being shouted at by the token pub/bar drunk I feel.
I'm not speaking for the person you guys were talking about, but I sometimes use caps for plain old emphasis because I'm too lazy to type the italics or boldface code tags. It's not always "shouting."

I'm not speaking for the person you guys were talking about, but I sometimes use caps for plain old emphasis because I'm too lazy to type the italics or boldface code tags. It's not always "shouting."

It does, admittedly, depend on context and poster, but I feel justified for the specific post.

I'm not speaking for the person you guys were talking about, but I sometimes use caps for plain old emphasis because I'm too lazy to type the italics or boldface code tags. It's not always "shouting."

Lol, I always always click the button... I'm always way too lazy to type the brackety things.

I'm enjoying this metaconversation about italics way too much, and I'm pretty tires... sorry for the redundant, and ridiculous italics....

I'm too tired*....

It does, admittedly, depend on context and poster, but I feel justified for the specific post.

You would.


:tongue:

<snip>
You are right, I do not know what it is to be hated, though you have expressed marked, and unceasing hostility no matter how politely I try to explain my views, I apologize for misunderstanding you hostility.
A nice backpedal combined with continuing to accuse me of doing what you yourself have been doing throughout this thread, to liberals in general, not just me. A cute rendition of "I'm sorry you're a crazed liberal loser." I have no intention of continuing to discuss your manners with you because it is not my job to correct them. But I will stand on the record of the thread as to which of us initiated hostilities. My opinion of you is as it stands. I'm done with this side issue.

It's sad that I've been here so long, I've seen so many arguments over and over that I can just repeat myself. SO here goes. On tolerance, and why your use of the word is utterly wrong:

To those who would say we must be "tolerant" of their views fundamentally misunderstands what tolerance means. To tolerate means only to allow without prohibiting or opposing. In a free society, tolerance of ones views means only that another does not seek to prohibit the free expression of those views.

I can be said to tolerate the views of people like, say, Fred Phelps because I do not seek to prohibit the vocalization of his viewpoints. As much as I abhore what he stands for, I would rather live in a society where he is free to speak his hate, than one where he is not.

That is all tolerance means, and that is all that is required of me to be tolerant of ones beliefs. That I do not seek to prohibit or oppose the expression of those beliefs.

The idea that somehow, under the mantle of "tolerance", I must respect, honor, agree with, or remain silent in my disagreement, of others viewpoints is absurd. I don't have to respect, agree, or understand your position in order to tolerate it, I need only not seek to prohibit your free exercise thereof.

Likewise while I tolerate your viewpoint, I am also free to vocalize, to the fullest extent, my disrespect, disbelief, and disagreement with those beliefs. Those who would scream that if I dare to disparage or voice my disapproval of their beliefs that I am being "intolerant" not only fundamentally misunderstand the term, they are guilty of the very thing they say they are opposing. For they are the ones who wish to have free reign to speak their beliefs, but would quash any opposition against them.

Tolerance demands only that I respect your right to express your beliefs. It does not demand that I remain silent in the face of beliefs I disagree with. I tolerate all beliefs, I make no efforts to prohibit you from believing them, or from expressing them. But to say that tolerance requires I can not exercise the very rights that I recognize you hold is, at its very core, the height of intolerance.

If free society demands that I tolerate your opposing views, and your right to express those views, it likewise requires that you tolerate mine. Any attempts therefore to try to force, coerce, or shame me into not voicing them due to my supposed "intolerance" renders you the only intolerant one amongst us.

You would.

Always do.

I am new to this arena but the concept of self justification is old. Of course they feel wronged... they had an opinion they sought to bring the majority of the county to agree with said opinion. Taking this personal is a natural reaction, for any argument, least of all one as critical as the best way to run the country you live in. As far as how long it will last, I would venture to say that if the economy sees a rebound the berating will stop. If it does not..if it takes a while, it will endure.

Whoa. Best. Idea. Ever. Why couldn't he have made Billy Dee Williams a member of the Cabinet? Maybe he could've been in charge of the Intergalactic Space Pimp Department, or whatever.

That, or like... a boxing match between Obama, and Billy Dee Williams... though Obama looks pretty fit, and Williams has got to be getting on now right?

Both great ideas.

...This bailout deal is getting worse all the time...

It's sad that I've been here so long, I've seen so many arguments over and over that I can just repeat myself. SO here goes. On tolerance, and why your use of the word is utterly wrong:

To those who would say we must be "tolerant" of their views fundamentally misunderstands what tolerance means. To tolerate means only to allow without prohibiting or opposing. In a free society, tolerance of ones views means only that another does not seek to prohibit the free expression of those views.

I can be said to tolerate the views of people like, say, Fred Phelps because I do not seek to prohibit the vocalization of his viewpoints. As much as I abhore what he stands for, I would rather live in a society where he is free to speak his hate, than one where he is not.

That is all tolerance means, and that is all that is required of me to be tolerant of ones beliefs. That I do not seek to prohibit or oppose the expression of those beliefs.

The idea that somehow, under the mantle of "tolerance", I must respect, honor, agree with, or remain silent in my disagreement, of others viewpoints is absurd. I don't have to respect, agree, or understand your position in order to tolerate it, I need only not seek to prohibit your free exercise thereof.

Likewise while I tolerate your viewpoint, I am also free to vocalize, to the fullest extent, my disrespect, disbelief, and disagreement with those beliefs. Those who would scream that if I dare to disparage or voice my disapproval of their beliefs that I am being "intolerant" not only fundamentally misunderstand the term, they are guilty of the very thing they say they are opposing. For they are the ones who wish to have free reign to speak their beliefs, but would quash any opposition against them.

Tolerance demands only that I respect your right to express your beliefs. It does not demand that I remain silent in the face of beliefs I disagree with. I tolerate all beliefs, I make no efforts to prohibit you from believing them, or from expressing them. But to say that tolerance requires I can not exercise the very rights that I recognize you hold is, at its very core, the height of intolerance.

If free society demands that I tolerate your opposing views, and your right to express those views, it likewise requires that you tolerate mine. Any attempts therefore to try to force, coerce, or shame me into not voicing them due to my supposed "intolerance" renders you the only intolerant one amongst us.

Though I realize that this is politely aimed at me, I agree with it.

In summation, I expressed my dismay that so many liberals that I know are intolerant. I disagree (openly) with 'homophobes'. As they have a right freely to their opinion, so do others.

I see the intolerance in people I know who genuinely hate people who are anti-gay (for lack of a better term).

I also see a lot of such intolerance on NS. As ,uch as neo-nazis should have the right to do their little rally thing, so do should everyone have the right to share their views. My problem is with intolerance being excused under the guise of tolerance.

If we openly respect everyone's right to feel what they believe, but work in love, and tolerance to change our society for the better, we can make friends of our enemies. All of them? Nope, but that's what the next generation is for, a generation with one less barrier to universal tolerance. Of course, intolerance is kind of part of the human condition, hopefully through education, and lovingkindness, it is a condition that can be at least partly remedied.

Always do.

Ok, good, I wasn't sure if you'd take offense... some people don't get it when they express their views and I reply in a snide tone "Psh, you would think/say that." ...because they just expressed that thought, or did just say that, I have decent ecidence to support that they would do that, lol.

Then again, I am ridiculous, and make light of nigh every situation... and most people aren't quite used to that.

...This bailout deal is getting worse all the time...

Umm, I confess to feeling a bit like a dunce... I'm not seeing what this has to do with a presidential boxing match...

... Oh... the creation of a new Federal department? Lol... yeah, I would have to support economic plans much less were Obama (well... anyone, really) to really to create an Intergalactic Space Pimp Department. (that is what you referred to right? I got off work recentyl and am pretty tired)

I also see a lot of such intolerance on NS.

You keep saying that. Who here, exactly, has said you should not be allowed to post your beliefs? Not who here disagreed with you? Not who here criticized you for holding those beliefs, who actually advocated you not being able to say them?

My problem is with intolerance being excused under the guise of tolerance.

You keep saying that's happening. What I haven't seen from you is an concrete examples of that actually happening.

If we openly respect everyone's right to feel what they believe, but work in love, and tolerance to change our society for the better, we can make friends of our enemies. All of them? Nope, but that's what the next generation is for, a generation with one less barrier to universal tolerance. Of course, intolerance is kind of part of the human condition, hopefully through education, and lovingkindness, it is a condition that can be at least partly remedied.

And again, I think you're confusing "tolerance" with some sort of gentlemanly "we should agree to disagree". Fuck that noise. Some things in life are not to be so easily ignored. Civil rights leaders didn't "agree to disagree" with those who thought blacks should be slaves. Suffragetts didn't "agree to disagree" with people who thought women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Some things in this world are not the sort of things we "agree to disagree" on. I may tolerate the racist, because I think he has the right to believe as he does. But I will do everything I can to prevent him from enforcing his agenda. I won't vote for racists, I won't fight for racist laws, and I will resist every effort to "compromise" with the racist.

Some things you don't just "agree to disagree" on.

You keep saying that. Who here, exactly, has said you should not be allowed to post your beliefs? Not who here disagreed with you? Not who here criticized you for holding those beliefs, who actually advocated you not being able to say them?

You keep saying that's happening. What I haven't seen from you is an concrete examples of that actually happening.

And again, I think you're confusing "tolerance" with some sort of gentlemanly "we should agree to disagree". Fuck that noise. Some things in life are not to be so easily ignored. Civil rights leaders didn't "agree to disagree" with those who thought blacks should be slaves. Suffragetts didn't "agree to disagree" with people who thought women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Some things in this world are not the sort of things we "agree to disagree" on. I may tolerate the racist, because I think he has the right to believe as he does. But I will do everything I can to prevent him from enforcing his agenda. I won't vote for racists, I won't fight for racist laws, and I will resist every effort to "compromise" with the racist.

Some things you don't just "agree to disagree" on.

I apologize, I must be sluggish, and unclear (again, pretty tired). I am not talking about compromise, or agreeing to disagree, and letting the issue rest.

On this forum I constantly see conservatives in general (typically) attacked, and lambasted by many people here. I am not saying that anyone said people shouldn't be allowed to post (or, I don't recall making such a claim). What I am saying is that there is no reasonable approach to civility towards people who might feel different.

I disagree with racism, and would likewise act in the manner you suggested. I am not intolerant of the racist, he can think whatever he wants. What I suggest is that we actively try to make the world a better place, but it should start with understanding, and compassion. By attacking people who are intolerant, any by being intolerant of them, we encourage them to dig in their heels. There is a time, and a place for bitter fighting, but it is among the breaches, not in America's current political climate.

What we need is for some people to step forward, strong in their beliefs of acceptance, and equality for everyone to model tolerance to all sides, while at the same time, trying to do what they can to better the situation, that is to say taking part in constructive debates, voting responsibly, and encouraging tolerance through tolerance in the first place.

...and that liberals are not inherently better than conservative...

Liberals are inherently better than conservatives. If for no other reason that 'liberals' (collectively) are liberal, while very few 'conservatives' are actually conservative.

...I don't mean anti-women. I simply feel that personhood, and inherent rights begin at conception, it is a personal moral view...

There is nothing 'moral' about depriving other people of rights.

I apologize, I must be sluggish, and unclear (again, pretty tired). I am not talking about compromise, or agreeing to disagree, and letting the issue rest.

On this forum I constantly see conservatives in general (typically) attacked, and lambasted by many people here. I am not saying that anyone said people shouldn't be allowed to post (or, I don't recall making such a claim). What I am saying is that there is no reasonable approach to civility towards people who might feel different.

OK, now we're coming to a consensus here. I agree that civility doesn't go out the window merely because people disagree with you.

However, when you talk about "conservatives in general" being attacked, a question whether there's not a known personality and dynamic of this conservative individual.

When people like New Mittani or Deep Kimchi get attacked, it's not just because of their "conservative" views, it's because they have voiced their perspective of things like..muslims should be rounded up and forcibly sterilized.

Now I will admit that this board is, overall, probably a tad hostile to conservative viewpoints taken as a whole, but I think it's disengenuous in the extreme to paint that as a "liberal" fault. And I think hostility that you received was prompted, largely, by your perceived attempt at doing so.

Liberals are inherently better than conservatives. If for no other reason that 'liberals' (collectively) are liberal, while very few 'conservatives' are actually conservative.

Perhaps... more consistant?

Though the scale of what is liberal, and what is conservative has changed over time as liberal agendas have won out (not to imply conspiracy, merely the direction of progress). As a result, the generic liberal ideas of freedom, and equality, and whatnot have been better able to survive than the conservative ideals that have had to adapt to advancing liberalism to remain relevant in today's society to the ideas of 'tradition' and 'value' and whatnot.

If this seems like I'm being a jerk, I'm pretty tired, so I probably didn't type so good (intentional grammar error to emphasis how tired I am, though tht I ma coherent enough to intentionally make a mistake, and explain it suggests I'm not as tired as previously mentioned... but I am, I'm jsut weird, and ridiculous.)

I can add one more personal experience of liberal hatred.


So - pointing out the hypocrisy in attacking liberals for attacking moderates (allegedly) is 'liberal hatred'?

I'm beginning to understand why you feel so 'hated' by liberals, if having your hypocrisy pointed out to you is all it takes for you to scream hate.

OK, now we're coming to a consensus here. I agree that civility doesn't go out the window merely because people disagree with you.

However, when you talk about "conservatives in general" being attacked, a question whether there's not a known personality and dynamic of this conservative individual.

When people like New Mittani or Deep Kimchi get attacked, it's not just because of their "conservative" views, it's because they have voiced their perspective of things like..muslims should be rounded up and forcibly sterilized.

Now I will admit that this board is, overall, probably a tad hostile to conservative viewpoints taken as a whole, but I think it's disengenuous in the extreme to paint that as a "liberal" fault. And I think hostility that you received was prompted, largely, by your perceived attempt at doing so.

Oh, I didn't mean hostility towards specific members... I didn't think there were any cons around anymore! :tongue:

Though, I dunno, those ebil muzlims! (jk, of course)

I feel like I should have something meaninful, and conducive to our consensus to add... but again, tired, so if you can think of something that would further such consensus, feel free to pretend I posted exactly that... I'll even back you up. :tongue:

So - pointing out the hypocrisy in attacking liberals for attacking moderates (allegedly) is 'liberal hatred'?

I'm beginning to understand why you feel so 'hated' by liberals, if having your hypocrisy pointed out to you is all it takes for you to scream hate.

I'll admit confusion to what you're trying to express... so I will just assume that you either haven't read all of my posts, or that you are jsut picking and choosing, or that you are merely misunderstanding... I'm not coherent to have the exact same debate again. I am pretty sure my viewpoint is well-explained, a second or third reading, if you value understanding may be required to get down to it, but it should be there.

...and unceasing hostility no matter how politely I try to explain my views...

Politeness isn't the problem. If you very politely explain to someone of dark skin that, they are inferior because of their second-class personhood, don't be surprised if you don't get a warm reception.

In this case, you feel you were very polite - in telling 'liberals' (collectively) that they were intolerant fonts of hatred and bile.

There is nothing 'moral' about depriving other people of rights.

Agreed, and I feel that personhood begins at conception. It's not actually a matter of rights, or murder (as many seem to think it simply comes down to.)

The core of the issue is when personhood begins, and what exactly that entails. I understand that a lot of people tend to side against me... nothing I can do except try to explain my viewpoints.

Also... pretty sure I didn't claim moral superiority.

Politeness isn't the problem. If you very politely explain to someone of dark skin that, they are inferior because of their second-class personhood, don't be surprised if you don't get a warm reception.

In this case, you feel you were very polite - in telling 'liberals' (collectively) that they were intolerant fonts of hatred and bile.

I am pretty sure I did not tell anyone such a thing... but, surely you can cite where I call all liberals fonts of hatred, and bile, or some such equal nonesense?

Look, I'm not trying to fight with you, I'm pretty sure the matter is all but resolved.

Perhaps the back and forth between Neo and I will be more conducive to understanding, Neo really tried to understand my perspective beneath the seemingly negative surface.

Agreed, and I feel that personhood begins at conception. It's not actually a matter of rights, or murder (as many seem to think it simply comes down to.)


When you think 'personhood' begins is irrelevent. You are talking about a situation can change and remove already existing rights, based on something you 'think' might be the case.


The core of the issue is when personhood begins, and what exactly that entails. I understand that a lot of people tend to side against me... nothing I can do except try to explain my viewpoints.


You could try to understand THEIR viewpoints, and maybe reconsider your own position. There's something else you 'can do'.

Personally, I don't care - unless you intend to vote according to the issue, in which case you will be politically my opponent.


Also... pretty sure I didn't claim moral superiority.

No, you claimed it was a personal moral view. It's a personal view, but it isn't moral.

Lol, it's convenient to ignore all the multitudes of crazy liberals when you are a liberal yourself I guess.

Who is louder? Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh? Al Gore or Bill Oriely?

You get my point. Crazy conservatives get more media time, and are rarely called on their insanity by the mainstream. If a liberal comes out and says "God wants us all to be vegetarians!" people point and laugh.

When Right wing leaders come out and say "God wants us to keep gays from getting married!" hardly anyone bats an eyelash.

Perhaps the back and forth between Neo and I will be more conducive to understanding, Neo really tried to understand my perspective beneath the seemingly negative surface.

Whereas I don't care. What you feel and think, deep down, that crap doesn't interest me. It's what you say, and what your thoughts lead you to DO, that I care about.

You can sit there getting warm fuzzies about embryoes being people, too. Knock yourself out. Try inviting some to tea, borrow some money off a foetus, and talk about me behind my back with a recently fertilised egg. Whatever. So long as it's all you, we're good. But once it becomes 'me', once you involve me, by talking about me, or by trespassing on my 'rights'? Then we have issues.

Who is louder? Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh? Al Gore or Bill Oriely?

You get my point. Crazy conservatives get more media time, and are rarely called on their insanity by the mainstream. If a liberal comes out and says "God wants us all to be vegetarians!" people point and laugh.

When Right wing leaders come out and say "God wants us to keep gays from getting married!" hardly anyone bats an eyelash.

Hell, look how much Al Gore has been demonized and ridiculed for daring to suggest "hey, throwing all this crap in the air MIGHT be harming our enviornment".

But when Rush, on air, live, says, directly "I want the president to fail", not one fucking peep. Imagine, imagine if Keith Olberman had said that on the air 8 years ago.

Hell, look how much Al Gore has been demonized and ridiculed for daring to suggest "hey, throwing all this crap in the air MIGHT be harming our enviornment".

Exactly. People scream and point at his electric bill as if thats somehow relevent.


But when Rush, on air, live, says, directly "I want the president to fail", not one fucking peep. Imagine, imagine if Keith Olberman had said that on the air 8 years ago.

People would have said he hated America.


Exactly what happened when people critized Bush 3 years later. The fucking mainstream media let that slide and sometimes joined in with that chorus.

Liberal media my ass.

But when Rush, on air, live, says, directly "I want the president to fail", not one fucking peep. Imagine, imagine if Keith Olberman had said that on the air 8 years ago.

He'd have been doing his subsequent shows from Gitmo for Hating Freedom™.

OK, now we're coming to a consensus here. I agree that civility doesn't go out the window merely because people disagree with you.

However, when you talk about "conservatives in general" being attacked, a question whether there's not a known personality and dynamic of this conservative individual.

When people like New Mittani or Deep Kimchi get attacked, it's not just because of their "conservative" views, it's because they have voiced their perspective of things like..muslims should be rounded up and forcibly sterilized.

Now I will admit that this board is, overall, probably a tad hostile to conservative viewpoints taken as a whole, but I think it's disengenuous in the extreme to paint that as a "liberal" fault. And I think hostility that you received was prompted, largely, by your perceived attempt at doing so.
This is one of the things that annoys me the most about this particular type of "victim" game: Some people will come into a thread and, to be blunt, deliberately provoke confrontation by copping a hostile attitude. They'll dress it up in clean language and good grammar, and sometimes they'll even stay on topic, but in reality, their posts are nothing but a vehicle for a catalogue of insults against other people. And when someone calls them on it, they're ready to slap on their goldplated Victim crown and launch into their act about how we're intolerant of them because they are conservatives (or anarchists or libertarians or whatever). Of course, they completely ignore the existence of conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, whatevers who don't get snapped at by liberals. And why don't they? Because they actually make points and debate issues, instead of just engaging in subtle flaming and flamebaiting.

There are a very few individual posters who typically get a lot of heat on this forum, and they are ALL, to a one, rude, hostile fight-pickers. Yes, NSG is a predominantly liberal/left-leaning forum, but there are plenty of other viewpoints that manage to get fair hearings. There are only a few individuals who do not, and that is by their own doing. It has nothing to do with whatever position they claim to be espousing.

If someone wants to come in looking for a fight against some favorite target, fine. But I do wish they would not waste my/our time by denying it while they do it.

Hell, look how much Al Gore has been demonized and ridiculed for daring to suggest "hey, throwing all this crap in the air MIGHT be harming our enviornment".

But when Rush, on air, live, says, directly "I want the president to fail", not one fucking peep. Imagine, imagine if Keith Olberman had said that on the air 8 years ago.
Actually, the tide may be turning on that one. Guess who gave a peep just a day or two ago about Rush Limbaugh wishing the president would fail? Guess who said that when the president fails, we all fail, and when he succeeds, the country succeeds and, therefore, when someone says they wish the president would fail, they are not thinking rationally?

Hang on to yourself:

PAT ROBERTSON.

Yes. :D

Yes, Pat Robertson has said that Rush Limbaugh is beyond the pale. Ah, poor American Right. Indeed, the times they are a'changing.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/2/17/exclusive-pat-robertson-says-obama-showing-partisanship-denounces-rush-limbaughs-i-hope-he-fails-remark.html

Actually, the tide may be turning on that one. Guess who gave a peep just a day or two ago about Rush Limbaugh wishing the president would fail? Guess who said that when the president fails, we all fail, and when he succeeds, the country succeeds and, therefore, when someone says they wish the president would fail, they are not thinking rationally?

Hang on to yourself:

PAT ROBERTSON.

Yes. :D

Yes, Pat Robertson has said that Rush Limbaugh is beyond the pale. Ah, poor American Right. Indeed, the times they are a'changing.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/2/17/exclusive-pat-robertson-says-obama-showing-partisanship-denounces-rush-limbaughs-i-hope-he-fails-remark.html


Wow, and he didnt even blame the gays for Limbaugh's actions.

EDIT: To be fair, Robertson has gotten a bit saner lately. Or so it seems.

Wow, and he didnt even blame the gays for Limbaugh's actions.

EDIT: To be fair, Robertson has gotten a bit saner lately. Or so it seems.
He just has occasional lucid moments.

Attacking the president just because hes not on your side is idiotic,
I don't.

I attack him because he advocates slavery and murder of the human spirit, and his positions are absolutely abhorrent.

Obama won his election fair and square.
Doesn't matter. If the wrong guy gets elected, then the proper thing to do is to ignore the election.

Obama has not started any wars.
Not necessarily a good thing, not necessarily a bad thing.

Obama has not caused an economic collapse.
He's certainly doing his part to make it worse, though.

Obama has not stripped away basic consitutional rights.
First, the source of our rights is not the Constitution, so referring to them as "Constitutional rights" is nonsense. They are properly referred to as "sacred natural rights." And he certainly has been engaging in wholesale violations of sacred natural rights, such as sacred property rights, sacred freedom of association, and now he's advocating infringing upon sacred freedom of speech and sacred freedom to revolt.

I don't.

I attack him because he advocates slavery and murder of the human spirit, and his positions are absolutely abhorrent.

Such as?

Doesn't matter. If the wrong guy gets elected, then the proper thing to do is to ignore the election.

So, if someone Bluth Corporation doesnt like wins, well, he didnt really win!

Are you NM's puppet?

He's certainly doing his part to make it worse, though.

"Ouch! A peice of the sky just landed on my head!"

First, the source of our rights is not the Constitution, so referring to them as "Constitutional rights" is nonsense. They are properly referred to as "sacred natural rights."

The law is what garuntees your rights.

And he certainly has been engaging in wholesale violations of sacred natural rights, such as sacred property rights,

How?

sacred freedom of association,

How?

and now he's advocating infringing upon sacred freedom of speech

How?

and sacred freedom to revolt.

ROFL.

Ok. Ive regained my composure. Tell me what leader hasnt done that?

Such as?
Socialized healthcare, redistribution of income, "national service," etc.

So, if someone Bluth Corporation doesnt like wins, well, he didnt really win!
No, if the objectively wrong guy wins, it simply doesn't matter that he won.

The law is what garuntees your rights.
No, my guns are.

How?
Redistribution of wealth, the so-called "equal pay" law, etc.

How?
"Equal-pay" laws, increasing minimum wage, etc.

How?
He has indicated support both for the so-called "Fairness doctrine" as well as legislation that would make making disparaging remarks against "protected groups" a federal crime.

Ok. Ive regained my composure. Tell me what leader hasnt done that?
He's not a leader. As a free man, I have no leader. I am sovereign in and of myself. He is a tyrant, because he seeks to abrogate my individual sovereignty. And just because he's not the only one doesn't excuse it.

No, if the objectively wrong guy wins, it simply doesn't matter that he won.

Lol, there you go again. Objective right and wrong do not exist, not in this reality or in any other. You can invent false constructs in your head to make you feel better about yourself, but they do not apply in the real world. There is no [b]objectively[/b right or wrong guy, and repeating that mantra like a cultist won't make it so. Just give it up already.

Objective right and wrong do not exist, not in this reality or in any other.

Yes, they do.

Your denials and assertions to the contrary fail to change that fact--after all, that's what "objective" means.

Socialized healthcare, redistribution of income, "national service," etc.

Doesnt violate what you think it violates. Funny how helping the poor is somehow "enslavement" though.

No, if the objectively wrong guy wins, it simply doesn't matter that he won.

Well, the objectively wrong guy didnt win. If he was objectively wrong, wed all agree with you.

No, my guns are.

Cute. Well, when SWAT shows up because you shot an IRS agent, and you dont have your guns anymore, you'll have to rely on the law, wont you?

Redistribution of wealth,

Hes done that? Really?

the so-called "equal pay" law, etc.

"Equal-pay" laws, increasing minimum wage, etc.


Paying people equally for equal work is "slavery"? I dont think you know what that word means.

He has indicated support both for the so-called "Fairness doctrine" as well as legislation that would make making disparaging remarks against "protected groups" a federal crime.

Thats not what the fairness doctrine is. We can add that to the list of things youre ignorant of. Its growing quite long, actually.

He's not a leader. As a free man, I have no leader. I am sovereign in and of myself. He is a tyrant, because he seeks to abrogate my individual sovereignty. And just because he's not the only one doesn't excuse it.

What cute sentiments. Too bad theyre both wrong and irrelevent.

Yes, they do.


Wow, what a compelling counter arguement!

Youre still wrong.

Actually, the tide may be turning on that one. Guess who gave a peep just a day or two ago about Rush Limbaugh wishing the president would fail? Guess who said that when the president fails, we all fail, and when he succeeds, the country succeeds and, therefore, when someone says they wish the president would fail, they are not thinking rationally?

Hang on to yourself:

PAT ROBERTSON.

Yes. :D

Yes, Pat Robertson has said that Rush Limbaugh is beyond the pale. Ah, poor American Right. Indeed, the times they are a'changing.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/2/17/exclusive-pat-robertson-says-obama-showing-partisanship-denounces-rush-limbaughs-i-hope-he-fails-remark.html


....holy crap

Lie.

He had no huge popularity with liberals.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/obama.leadership.poll/index.html"That's the best number an incoming president has gotten on that dimension since Ronald Reagan took office in 1981," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "The public's rating of his leadership skills is already as high as George W. Bush's was after 9/11 and easily beats the numbers that both Bush and Bill Clinton got at the start of their first terms in office."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gregg200310020823.aspAfter the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, for instance, Franklin Roosevelt's approval ratings jumped 12 points and after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy's popularity rose 13 points. Until the attacks of 9/11, the record rally effect was held by the first President Bush who, following the successful war to liberate Kuwait, saw his popularity with the American people rise 18-percentage points. George W. Bush's popularity, on the other hand, rose an astounding 35 points (from 51 percent to 86 percent) — almost doubling the previous record. He would eventually become the most popular president in the history of polling when he reached 90-percent approval in the fall of 2001.

Equally inevitable, following the end of the time of crisis, presidential popularity falls again to its previous level (or even lower). Seldom does a president's crisis-induced popularity last longer than a few months and none has ever lasted longer than ten months. President Bush's rally is now over, but it took two full years to reach that point — shattering the old record and setting a bar it will be difficult if not impossible for any president ever to match.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_john_farmer/2009/01/george_w_bush_an_american_trag.htmlIn the weeks immediately after 9/11 Bush's popularity rating, 92 percent, was the highest ever recorded for any president.


Sorry, who's lying?

Yes, they do.

Your denials and assertions to the contrary fail to change that fact--after all, that's what "objective" means.

No, they don't, no matter how many times you repeat yourself. There is no such thing as objective morality.

Sorry, who's lying?

http://www.gamegoldies.org/old_game_files/2007/10/ace_ventura_screenshot_2.png

"Thank you... for... your... cooperation!!"

Doesn't matter. If the wrong guy gets elected, then the proper thing to do is to ignore the election.
No, if the objectively wrong guy wins, it simply doesn't matter that he won.
Yes, they do.

Your denials and assertions to the contrary fail to change that fact--after all, that's what "objective" means.

You realize that such a belief is fundamentally contrary to the system we live in? Such a system as seems to be implicit in your quaint little view is not a democratic one, in any way. I mean, honestly, this is actually one of the few times one might just be able to say like it or leave it and have some kind of basis that isn't completely counter to the values of our political system.

Doesnt violate what you think it violates. Funny how helping the poor is somehow "enslavement" though.
Because the particular means used to attain it are compulsory and coercive in nature.

Well, the objectively wrong guy didnt win. If he was objectively wrong, wed all agree with you.
To be objectively true does not require universal agreement--there's such a thing as being wrong.

Paying people equally for equal work is "slavery"? I dont think you know what that word means.
What an employer pays an employee is a private matter between the two; no one else has any legitimate authority to interfere.

Thats not what the fairness doctrine is.
Yes, it is. Restricting the ability of an entity to choose on its own what ideas it will and will not broadcast is indeed a violation of its freedom of speech.

What cute sentiments. Too bad theyre both wrong and irrelevent.
No, the concept of individual sovereignty is quite correct.

You realize that such a belief is fundamentally contrary to the system we live in?
Correct; the current system is illegitimate.

this is actually one of the few times one might just be able to say like it or leave it
I am not obligated to abandon my property and my livelihood, which are properly mine not by permission or privilege but by right, to avoid having more of my rights violated by an illegitimate political system. The obligation is upon the illegitimate political system to reform to eliminate its illegitimate elements.

....holy crap

Literally.

-snip-

Keep in mind that Bush's rating was EXCLUSIVELY from being in office during the 9/11 -- just as Giuliani's popularity and argument for being the republican candidate was exclusively for being NYC mayor during 9/11. Now, Giuliani's not that bad of a mayor,m but he's no Bloomberg.

For reference, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George_W_Bush_approval_ratings.svg -- yes, that's a FORTY POINT JUMP in a day or two just for being in charge.

Correct; the current system is illegitimate.


I am not obligated to abandon my property and my livelihood, which are properly mine not by permission or privilege but by right, to avoid having more of my rights violated by an illegitimate political system. The obligation is upon the illegitimate political system to reform to eliminate its illegitimate elements.

The current system was here before you were and agreed upon by existing society before you had the capacity to even consider such. In fact, society as a whole was here before you and any land or property you possess was here prior to yourself, so by your very own logic you are, in fact,obligated to abandon your property and livelihood as it is implicit in the possession of such that you are going to play by society's rules. It is, as you say, part of the inalienable right to contract or whatever it is that you seem to believe in.

there's such a thing as being wrong.

Youd be the expert.

People would have said he hated America.

Hell, morons were saying it when we QUESTIONED his policies, as opposed to openly HOPING HE'D FAIL.

Keep in mind that Bush's rating was EXCLUSIVELY from being in office during the 9/11
Yes, but SOMEONE here said that he was NEVER popular among liberals. Clearly, that cannot have been the case when he had an 86-92 percent approval rating after 9/11. No?