To those of us who just sold your country down the river...
POSTED BY: Clandestiny
UPDATED: Sunday, November 7, 2004 19:31
VIEWED: 18299
PAGE 7 of 8
How kind of you to "condescend" to pointing
out all the problems with my post, Gruesome.
It's really valuable to have your opinion
that my rhetoric is more inflammatory than
*your* rhetoric!
(Now, don't forget to complain about
my use of sarcasm! And be sarcastic while
you do so, please, so we can keep this
pointless exhange going indefinitely!!!)
WAIT and I Just have to edit to include this last thing. You said, You're a bright guy. Lets look at just your last post...
Then later, you called me "man."
With all due respect to Johnny Cash and his
hit song....HOW could you assume I was a GUY?
How many men named "Suzie" do you know? LOL.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I apologize if I am showing my age by my use of the term "man". It is a generic term. Like "he" in shakespeare. Don't make something out of nothing. I didn't really notice your name contained the word Suzie at the end anyway. SHould I also assume you are a floozy?
And I am not condescending to you. I am trying to point out the points of your posts that would not be taken well and would likely instead get the hackles up of those that you would, in theory, be trying to convince of your issues.
It is becoming clear though that some people here have little to no interest in any constructive criticism and cannot distinguish it from ad hominem attacks of the right.
So, what we have is a group of people that share many of the same beliefs that seem to want to find solace in bickering with one another. Thats great. I guess that I am becoming surprised that there was only a 3.5 million vote margin.
Is it honestly too much to ask that someone could read my words and not attribute double meaning and hidden insult to them?
Can you not recognize when someone is not attacking your beliefs but perhaps suggesting your delivery sucks?
If you can't hold this conversation with me, why on earth would you ever bother trying to discuss politics with someone that doesn't share your views? Because you like arguing? If so, thats fine, but say so please and I'll stop wasting my time trying to raise the level of conversation to one that might actually accomplish something.
Cheers,
Gruesome
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*sigh*
The young didn't turn out to vote. When they find themselves drafted to fight George's oil wars, perhaps they'll regret the oversight.
One pundit made the observation that the " 'Nascar Dads' felt that they shared more core values with Bush". I never realized that spending 3 decades as a coke sniffing drunk was a value that the nascar types admired.
We seriously need to overhaul the electoral college. We also need to once again seperate church and state and reinstitute a free press.
"Just keep walkin, preacher man."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by gruesome:
I find it typical and annoying that when people on the right disagree with those on the left, they usually put it in terms of disagreeing with the left's position.
Whereas people on the left, as further evidenced here, tend to insult the intelligence of those on the right instead of just accepting that they disagree with our views.
Yep, that's why you never hear the right calling people, 'liberal' like it's some kind of insult. No wait, that happens all the time. Hell, Republicans were calling Kerry a Massachusetts Liberal, and no one in the media called them on it.
Imagine if Kerry called Bush a, 'typical Texas hick.' You know there would be outrage.
C.S.Strowbridge
News Editor / Movie Reviewer / Talentless Hack
http://members.shaw.ca/csstrowbridge/MainPage.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dear Gruesome:
I am so truly sorry that you have been reduced to a mere caricature of what others believe you to be based on your selected stance and beliefs. It's difficult when folks just aren't willing to debate on the merits of the issue and then to just leave it all well said and done when the issues are irreducible to nothing but deeply held positions and beliefs. We are all good hardworking Americans who wish well on ourselves, our families, our friends and neighbors. There must be some common ground we can hold onto without resorting to just calling each other dummies and liars.
Let's face it, whether you voted for Bush or not. The nation and the elections have not been about leadership. We haven't had good leaders where we as citizens can be confident about their ability to make good sound decisions (that's from either party). Good leaders have the ability to unite people, to have you at least trust them and respect them when they make decisions - even when you disagree with them. They are some one that you can admire - whether it's charisma or ability to actually execute and accomplish something. Without that lately, thus we all will be continually bickering about their decisions - whatever the issues, however the decision lie.
We've all been to reduced to sets of issues - and there isn't anything wrong with that; except that we all get labeled based on those issues. But while we are not all single issue minded folks, we are forced to make decisions weighting the importance of all of these complex sets of issues. We are not all evangelical Christians and we are not all tree-huggers, but we ended up picking those candidates that represent some other elements of our beliefs who also happen to carry along caricatures of those other things too. Sadly, we really have these two choices.
or do we? Why didn't we vote Nader? Why wasn't McCain on the roll?
If everyone wants to keep bickering in the next 4 years and do nothing else productive. That's their rights as Americans. Or you can start now and make real changes in the system so that we aren't as devisive, so that we have better candidates, so that our political parties don't suck as much.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your calling me "man" would not have occasioned the slightest comment if not for the fact that you made an *earlier* assumption of masculine gender.
I also frequently sprinkle my speech with terms like "groovy" and "man", if only to elicit eye-rolling from my teenager. Like, I get it, Gruesome, man. It's cool.
HOWEVER there is that condescending "You're a BRIGHT GUY (but)..." line a few paragraphs
earlier. :-P
uh, so not gender neutral.
also, so clearly patronizing
(as was your scolding, "Don't make something
out of nothing" )
Your entire last post: Condescending, spoiling for fight while arguing that OTHERS should cease
And, yes, you can assume I'm a floozy.
But only in the damn-your-husband-is-so-lucky!
connotation ;-)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"You're a BRIGHT GUY (but)..." line a few paragraphs
earlier. :-P
uh, so not gender neutral.
D'oh! True. That was me not paying attention to the name of the poster to whom I was replying.
Quote:
Your entire last post: Condescending, spoiling for fight while arguing that OTHERS should cease
I think that is how you choose to interpret it. I really do not have any interest in fighting with you. QUite the opposite, I am hoping to tone the rhetoric down to a point in which people can just talk. I think that you view my words in the worst possible light, it seems. Were we to compare our postings though, can you imagine how I might take your words then?
Quote:
And, yes, you can assume I'm a floozy.
But only in the damn-your-husband-is-so-lucky!
connotation ;-)
Heh... I have no defense or retort to that!
Cheers,
Gruesome
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't really know anyone that likes him though.
Would it then be your contention that it is good
to emulate the likes of him?
You bring up an obvious example of someone on the right that is an attacker. But, his behavior is in the minority of those on the right in my opinion.
I'm not condoning this type of behavior on either side. I meant the Hannity crack to be tounge in cheek. However, it doesn't matter that he's in the minority or not, point is that he is a well known, popular, conservative who does resort to calling liberals stupid, or even stating that they morally bankrupt.
Quote:
This election was typical, IMO. the drive wasn't to try to debate the merits of positions and perhaps change anyone's view with CALM conversation, it was to shanghai new voters to march lock-step into the booths to just outnumber them.
You're right, this election was politics as usual. I don't think it's ever been about calm conversation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I've certainly seen that. But honestly, to my eye, that rhetoric seems like last resort from most on the right."
Actually, the Bush campaign made a complete theme out of PERSONALLY attacking Kerry - does the phrase flip-flopper ring a bell?
I thought the Kerry campaign could credibly be described as issue-oriented: the war (how's that working for you?), the economy, personal freedoms etc.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I've certainly seen that. But honestly, to my eye, that rhetoric seems like last resort from most on the right."
Actually, the Bush campaign made a complete theme out of PERSONALLY attacking Kerry - does the phrase flip-flopper ring a bell?
I thought the Kerry campaign could credibly be described as issue-oriented: the war (how's that working for you?), the economy, personal freedoms etc.
You and I did not watch the same election take place. Kerry's "issues" were 2 sides of every one, so from the that perspective, I suppose you are right, Kerry had twice as many issues.
As far as attacking Kerry, it was the 501(??) groups doing the damage there aside from the bush folks clinging to the "flip-flop" theme that Kerry consistently handed to them on a silver platter.
I heard far more venomous things coming from the left. Perhaps not always from Kerry's mouth, but for someone that constantly asked Bush to apologize for what the swift-boat veterans were saying, I sure didn't see him apologizing for people like Michael Moore calling bush a murderer and guilty of treason on Kerry's behalf.
Whether you like it or not, people judge you not only on your own merits, but also by the company you keep. I think you delude yourself if you think that Kerry did enough to distance himself from the vitriol spewing out of the left coast.
And for every one Hannity, there were 10 celebrities saying far worse about bush.
If rational people on the left could become the primary voice of it, then people like Hannity wouldn't seem appropriate on the right. As it is, he seems almost tame to me.
Cheers,
Gruesome
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME