Musings on Election Night

[livius drusus]

I think Larry King may well be the stupidest person with a brain still capable of sustaining involuntary reflexes.

Sharpton is a master of the rhetorical rope-a-dope. Weld was totally outclassed on the Daily Show special.

I cannot believe over 860,000 Kentuckians would vote for a total nutcracker suite like Bunning.

Pennsylvania is 59%-40% for Kerry right now. Don't know if it'll last, though.

P. Diddy looks like a nimrod with his hair in a mohawk.

I'm tired but I can't sleep yet.

[freemonkey]

I'm glad I live on the west coast.

I'm very proud of my home state, Illinois.

I felt bad for Warren when I heard about some nutjob in Oklahoma running for senator(?) who said he believed that abortion should be outlawed altogether and gays & unwed mothers should not be allowed to teach in public schools.

I want to start a list of other countries I can move to.

I kinda wish I had some warm chocolate chip or oatmeal cookies.

[livius drusus]

Oatmeal cookies are good.

Nader's blaming Democratic dirty tricks and his former supporters who defected to Kerry for his sucky turnout.

John Kerry really does have a great haircut.

[Dingfod]

I think Larry King may well be the stupidest person with a brain still capable of sustaining involuntary reflexes.LOL

Sharpton is a master of the rhetorical rope-a-dope.I wish I had vote for him.

Weld was totally outclassed on the Daily Show special.It's just now on here.

I cannot believe over 860,000 Kentuckians would vote for a total nutcracker suite like Bunning.And yet, 65% of Texans for for a moron.

Pennsylvania is 59%-40% for Kerry right now. Don't know if it'll last, though.It will, all the rural counties are in. They don't have that many vote to count. The cities had people waiting in line when the polls closed. The didn't stop until they all had a chance to vote.

P. Diddy looks like a nimrod with his hair in a mohawk.P.Dididy is a nimrod. You got that nimrod thing from me, didn't you?

I'm tired but I can't sleep yet.I'm drunk and I can't sleep yet. My wife is not home.

[Dingfod]

Fcuk elections, elections are for democracies. We don't got no democracy here, ti's a fucking Bushtatorship.

[Dingfod]

I'm the only one here, lalalalalalalalalalalallalala.


Sorry, PWI.

[wade-w]

Damn, it's starting to look like Bush is going to take Florida outright this time. :(

[Nil Desperandum]

Seriously, HOW IN THE FUCK IS BUSH WINNING?

[The Lone Ranger]

Seriously, HOW IN THE FUCK IS BUSH WINNING?

I wish I knew. Just how much more proof do people need that Bush is completely incompetent and morally bankrupt? Why is this even a contest?

[freemonkey]

.... fucking Bushtatorship. :giggle:

I saw the numbers for DC at 90% for Kerry?!! What should that tell us?

[wade-w]

I'm not going to concede yet. Right now, it really depends on who wins Ohio. Looks like Cleveland might be the deciding factor.

[freemonkey]

Seriously, HOW IN THE FUCK IS BUSH WINNING?

I've heard some talk about gay marriage and morals and abortion, and shit like that. You know, the stuff that's really no one else's business.

[Nil Desperandum]

Man, what the fuck.

Bush just took Colorado. :cry:

[Cool Hand]

I have something really politically weighty to say. Party headquarters can be a great place to meet, chat up, and flirt with a gorgeous TV journalist. You might even chat about e-mailing with her later, and get her to give you her e-mail address with a promise to look for a message from you. Yay politics!

Cool Hand

[wade-w]

Yeah, and to make it worse, the Republicans will retain control of the House.

[Petra]

http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/indecision2004/blog.jhtml

:)

"Word has it that before every election show, CNN's Jeff Greenfield visits a 95 year-old Albanian woman who reads tea leaves. She predicts a good season for planting sorghum, an early frost, and warns against early return polling in battleground states that ignores demographically significant voter blocks.

Crossfire's Robert Novak gets his inside info from a friend at the CIA, undercover operative Frank Barnsworth. Oops! Delete, delete, where's the delete key?

Pat Robertson, of course, has a hotline to God. And if you send the 700 Club $50, you can, too. Call now! "



"A Presidential campaign is like a wedding: no sooner is the event over than you find yourself writing thousands of thank-you notes. Our sources at the U.S. Postal Service of the Future intercepted this missive from Laura Bush to Teresa Heinz Kerry. Let's take a peek":

http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/indecision2004/images/thankyounote.jpg

[wade-w]

What gets me is that Bush is leading in the popular vote.

[The Lone Ranger]

What kills me is that NPR was recently talking about how many people cite "moral values" as their reason for favoring Bush.

If morality mattered, Bush wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hades!

[Cool Hand]

Methinks there is a just teeny, tiny pro-Kerry bias in this thread. Of course, I'm just speculating.

Methinks also that regardless of the final outcome of the election, doom and gloom are not on the horizon, as has been forecast so much here and elsewhere.

Cool Hand

[freemonkey]

I blame reality TV.

Do the networks charge more for ad space during the guessing hours?

If Bush wins, I'd like to be the first to call shenanigans.

How much worse can it get if Bush wins? Any nightmare scenarios?

[wildernesse]

I'm so, so, so sad. It looks like I will be wearing black tomorrow. Woe is me.

Anyway, it looks like our House Rep will be a Dem--finally! Woohoo. I'm hoping he has some kind of magic jewel shard or other power enhancing device. Woohoo!

:yawn: Tired, sad little monkey overall though. Why?

[wade-w]

Methinks there is a just teeny, tiny pro-Kerry bias in this thread. Of course, I'm just speculating.
Cool Hand

I'm not really pro-Kerry, but I am vehemently anti-Bush.

[The Lone Ranger]

I'm not really pro-Kerry, but I am vehemently anti-Bush.

Exactly!

[Cool Hand]

Methinks there is a just teeny, tiny pro-Kerry bias in this thread. Of course, I'm just speculating.
Cool Hand

I'm not really pro-Kerry, but I am vehemently anti-Bush.

Thanks. I stand corrected. The Wall Street Journal made this very point this morning, noting that so much of Kerry's "support" is actually anti-Bush voting.

(the following is not directed at you, wade-w. This just happens to be a convenient spot for my somewhat off-topic comments):

It still appears that the anti-Bush forces are not as numerous and widespread as the press has assumed all along. I'll go out on a limb and state, probably without adequate foundation due to the population sample's being far too small, that this board might be regarded as a microcosm of the so-called "liberal elite" that doesn't fully understand the mindset of "Middle America." The elite often seem shocked to learn that persons outside their orbits can hold different beliefs and values from theirs.

We are witnessing that there is simply not an overwhelming mandate in the U.S. to run President Bush out of office, as the Democrats have seemed to believe in the past months.

Again, like him and his policies or not, but the President's serving a second term is not likely to lead to gloom and doom. The rhetoric forecasting the same is simply unfounded hyperbole.

Cool Hand

[viscousmemories]

I agree with you that the gates of Hell aren't likely to open up and swallow mankind if Bush retains his position, Cool Hand, but I wouldn't go so far as to say there will be no doom and gloom. I for one am not looking forward to four more years of this administrations assaults on civil liberties, for example. That seems pretty gloomy to me.

[wade-w]

Well, according to CNN, now Ohio is "too close to call." If they are right, we won't know who gets those 20 votes for 11 days.

[viscousmemories]

I confess that more than anything I'll be glad when this election is over, whatever the outcome. I've only recently begun to follow politics and as such I'm looking forward to talking about something other than the Presidential race.

[viscousmemories]

c-span has a cool interactive map (http://network.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/election_night_2004/us_map_govsenhouse/index.html?SITE=CSPANELN&SECTION=POLITICS).

[wade-w]

And now it appears that Iowa is having technical problems with broken counting machines. So that's 7 more votes that are going to be up in the air for a day or so.

[seebs]

Well, four more years of people being held without charges is pretty bad. Maybe another 100,000-200,000 Iraqi civilians dead, that's bad. Gradual collapse of our economy, that's pretty bad.

I normally vote Republican because I like fiscal conservatives. Bush is no such thing, and I think he'll do a lot of damage.

We also get three hand-picked neocon psycho loon Supreme Court justices, carefully chosen to endorse Bush's "we are a Christian nation and fuck all y'all who aren't" view of things.

This is, IMHO, very bad.

And I'm saying that as a Christian Republican.

[Adora]

I hate your US news reporters and wish they would all die by being gnawed to death by a pack of rabid monkeys. With SIV. Just to make it worse.

Sorry, but when you have a fucking election not for your country on all 3 free-to-air commercial stations, you start to get very pissed off. Until your blue-blood prince is re-elected, I am going to sit here with my fingers stuck in my ears and go "LALALALALALALALA".

[beyelzu]

Methinks there is a just teeny, tiny pro-Kerry bias in this thread. Of course, I'm just speculating.

Methinks also that regardless of the final outcome of the election, doom and gloom are not on the horizon, as has been forecast so much here and elsewhere.

Cool Hand
tell me honestly,


did you vote for that fucking cocksucker?

[beyelzu]

Methinks there is a just teeny, tiny pro-Kerry bias in this thread. Of course, I'm just speculating.
Cool Hand

I'm not really pro-Kerry, but I am vehemently anti-Bush.

Thanks. I stand corrected. The Wall Street Journal made this very point this morning, noting that so much of Kerry's "support" is actually anti-Bush voting.

(the following is not directed at you, wade-w. This just happens to be a convenient spot for my somewhat off-topic comments):

It still appears that the anti-Bush forces are not as numerous and widespread as the press has assumed all along. I'll go out on a limb and state, probably without adequate foundation due to the population sample's being far too small, that this board might be regarded as a microcosm of the so-called "liberal elite" that doesn't fully understand the mindset of "Middle America." The elite often seem shocked to learn that persons outside their orbits can hold different beliefs and values from theirs.

We are witnessing that there is simply not an overwhelming mandate in the U.S. to run President Bush out of office, as the Democrats have seemed to believe in the past months.

Again, like him and his policies or not, but the President's serving a second term is not likely to lead to gloom and doom. The rhetoric forecasting the same is simply unfounded hyperbole.

Cool Hand



yeah, I am so fucking liberal. I am far more fiscally conservative than the murderous fuck that is our prick in chief currently.

[HelenM]

I'm amazed that of 18-24 year olds, only 1 in 10 voted. Perhaps it's always like that in that age category, but I'm still surprised so few of them voted.

Helen

[HelenM]

Well, according to CNN, now Ohio is "too close to call." If they are right, we won't know who gets those 20 votes for 11 days.

True, but Bush has won unless almost all those provisional ballots count as votes and are almost all for Kerry.

Helen

[beyelzu]

arent the absentee ballots still not counted yet?

[livius drusus]

Deep breaths, bey. lunachick's the one who's supposed to be losing her shit on this thread, not you. ;)

[SharonDee]

Damn the exit pollers for giving me false hope!
:irked:

[Goliath]

Methinks there is a just teeny, tiny pro-Kerry bias in this thread. Of course, I'm just speculating.

Methinks also that regardless of the final outcome of the election, doom and gloom are not on the horizon, as has been forecast so much here and elsewhere.

Cool Hand
tell me honestly,


did you vote for that fucking cocksucker?

I'd also like to ask Cool Hand that question, along with this follow-up:

If you DID vote for that fucking cocksucker, then WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

[SharonDee]

An excerpt from Slate's Simple but Effective -Why you keep losing to this idiot (http://www.slate.com/id/2109079/)

I think this is the answer: Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity.

Bush is a very simple man. You may think that makes him a bad president, as I do, but lots of people don't--and there are more of them than there are of us.

[Petra]

Deep breaths, bey. lunachick's the one who's supposed to be losing her shit on this thread, not you. ;)

LOL!

Nah. I've resigned myself to it all.

As I said over at IIDB - I'm just going to put my head down and go about my business in my little part of the world and live.

I'm so very, very pleased that I am a New Zealander. Christ, I'm grateful for that! :yup:

[Godless Dave]

I'll go out on a limb and state, probably without adequate foundation due to the population sample's being far too small, that this board might be regarded as a microcosm of the so-called "liberal elite" that doesn't fully understand the mindset of "Middle America." The elite often seem shocked to learn that persons outside their orbits can hold different beliefs and values from theirs.The liberal elite thing is a myth. The elite in this country are the rich.

It's not that Middle American holds different values than I. They hold many of the same values, but they vote for a man who does not because they believe his blatant lying bullshit.

It's not about a different set of values. It's about the fact that on several occasions he lied to Congress about WMDs in Iraq and Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda.


Again, like him and his policies or not, but the President's serving a second term is not likely to lead to gloom and doom. The rhetoric forecasting the same is simply unfounded hyperbole.
He's already lied us into one unnecessary war in which 1123 Americans have died for nothing. He also tried to stifle dissent regarding that war. And he let polluters write pollution regulations. And he ignored and is continuing to ignore Al Qaeda, the number one threat to our national security.

Moreover, he is dumber than dogshit. Doesn't that bother you?

I predict doom and gloom: more poorly-planned and unnecessary wars, more detentions without due process, dirtier air, dirtier water, continued reliance on imported petroleum, lower standard of living for 95% of the country, and more assaults on civil liberties. And the kicker is that a majority of Americans chose this future.

I'm outta here. I don't know yet how I'm going to do it, but I cannot live in a country whose people voluntarily vote away their civil and economic rights.

[livius drusus]

I think how Cool Hand voted ain't nobody's bidness but his own (and possibly his mama's). Besides, if our response to interlocutors is inquisition instead of introspection and response, then we are all just pretending to have discussions when we're actually just looking for a quick handjob from the guy standing next to us.

As for you luna, no need to rub it in, ya :kiwibird: :beagle:. :P

[freemonkey]

Fuck!

[HelenM]

Moreover, he is dumber than dogshit. Doesn't that bother you?


Actually, your comment bothers me a lot.

This is a general comment, not about this election: I'd rather have a less smart honest person be president than a smart criminal. IQ isn't everything.

This is a comment about this election - I think he's smarter than you give him credit for. He has got himself re-elected, after all. He figured out how to appeal to enough people to get the votes he needed.

Before y'all scream at me, that doesn't mean I wanted him to win.

Helen

[Adam]

I think how Cool Hand voted ain't nobody's bidness but his own (and possibly his mama's). Besides, if our response to interlocutors is inquisition instead of introspection and response, then we are all just pretending to have discussions when we're actually just looking for a quick handjob from the guy standing next to us.

I grudgingly agree with livius here. Much as I'd love to kick some verbal ass right now, given the mood I'm in, accusation and intimidation don't resolve differences, they perpetuate them. Moreover, they don't lead to understanding those differences, which is something the world could use a lot more of.

Besides, the whole point of democracy is that you vote how you want, no matter how much other individuals may disagree with your vote. That doesn't work if we're going to intimidate people for their votes. If you don't like it (and, frankly, I don't much like it right now), then you need to talk about the possibility that the democratic model is flawed, not attack individuals for how they vote.

Not that I'm naive enough to think that all differences can be resolved, mind you. I'm currently in a state of deep despair for the world, given that there are key differences in my values and the values of, say the Americans who vote based on gay marriage, or Islamists (note that this denotes a specific school of radical Isalmic thought, not Islam in general), or Libertarians, thay seem essentially irreconcilable. Bleh. Sadness. Anger.

[Godless Dave]

Actually, your comment bothers me a lot.

This is a general comment, not about this election: I'd rather have a less smart honest person be president than a smart criminal. IQ isn't everything.
It's not everything, but it's important. And in this election, Bush was the candidate who was both less smart and less honest. I mean, he lied in his 2003 State of the Union address, for pete's sake. Even Clinton didn't do that.

This is a comment about this election - I think he's smarter than you give him credit for. He has got himself re-elected, after all. He figured out how to appeal to enough people to get the votes he needed.
He didn't, his handlers did.

[Petra]

I think he's smarter than you give him credit for. He has got himself re-elected, after all. He figured out how to appeal to enough people to get the votes he needed.


I tend to think that the people around him are the smart ones, and criminal with it, and they're the ones who mastered the re-election thing and groomed his public image and appeal.

[godfry n. glad]

I agree with you that the gates of Hell aren't likely to open up and swallow mankind if Bush retains his position, Cool Hand, but I wouldn't go so far as to say there will be no doom and gloom. I for one am not looking forward to four more years of this administrations assaults on civil liberties, for example. That seems pretty gloomy to me.

Plus, all indications are that this adminstration will get to appoint one, or more, new members to the SCOTUS.

Be prepared for an overturn of Roe v. Wade in the next four years.

I shall be interested to see whether John Ashcroft will be retained in his current capacity for the next four years.

I also fully expect the pace of terrorist attacks upon the U.S. to accelerate, and following the initial increase, a major onslaught on civil liberties by administration officials will follow....using the "we must destroy the village to save it" rationale.

One of the perils of democratic elections is that they allow those who are easily mislead to make major decisions. It's not necessary to fool all the people all of the time, just enough of the people at the right time.

Remember... The conservatives have been telling us for years that the 2nd Amendment is there for a reason. It remains to be seen whether that reason is at hand.

godfry

[Adam]

...and now Kerry appears to be preparing to concede, per the Associated Press.

Lovely.

[Petra]

One of the perils of democratic elections is that they allow those who are easily mislead to make major decisions. It's not necessary to fool all the people all of the time, just enough of the people at the right time.



I just added this to the random quotes. Very true.

[Clutch Munny]

I'll go out on a limb and state, probably without adequate foundation due to the population sample's being far too small, that this board might be regarded as a microcosm of the so-called "liberal elite" that doesn't fully understand the mindset of "Middle America."

The lack of foundation is not due to sample size, but to the vacuousness of the concepts employed.

This is one of the dumber classification schemas that -- strangely, huh? -- figure so prominently in that old liberal media. "Middle America" is in large measure split down the middle politically, and was again in this election. We're talking a couple of percentage points difference. Bootstrapping this into a "liberal elite" that fails to understand common-folks' values is sheer foolishness. While it may be true that there are some liberals with values and interests that count as idiosyncratic relative to the mainstream, the same is of course true of some conservatives -- that basically 50-50 split seems rather decisively to rule out one group's being significantly less in touch than the other -- and yet somehow we never hear the ringing cadences of the phrase "conservative elite out of touch with Middle America".

Clearly the data do not support this asymmetry; so what does? Spin; story master narratives; journalistic laziness? The media can indulge in Argument by Vacuous Catchphrase because we expect the purveyors of Married By America to be idiotic; I'd prefer not to see it here, however.


We are witnessing that there is simply not an overwhelming mandate in the U.S. to run President Bush out of office, as the Democrats have seemed to believe in the past months.

This is a strange thing to say. I've seen vast swathes of political coverage, and virtually every Democrat predicted a very close race. It's easy to be righter than a strawman.

[Cool Hand]

I think how Cool Hand voted ain't nobody's bidness but his own (and possibly his mama's). Besides, if our response to interlocutors is inquisition instead of introspection and response, then we are all just pretending to have discussions when we're actually just looking for a quick handjob from the guy standing next to us.


That's exactly right, Liv, and Adam too. It's not even my mama's bidness.

I note that you surmised correctly that more than anything I simply wanted to mention that there seems to be too much homogeny of opinion here that re-electing Bush is the appearance of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. My remarks are neither an endorsement or an indictment of the man as a candidate.

Yes, I'm sick of the handjobs, as you say, that nearly everyone here seems to be giving each other over their obvious disgust with the President. I'm not interested in hearing endless rehashings of why anyone in particular might dislike him. Haven't we heard it all already?

I was making a meta point about the bandwagon of opinion that seems to prevail at this particular board, in this particular forum, and in other groups, and in other media. Furthermore, I do not wish to discuss in this thread the merits of or the lack of merit behind any of this adminstration's policies.

Cool Hand

[BigBlue2]

Again, like him and his policies or not, but the President's serving a second term is not likely to lead to gloom and doom. The rhetoric forecasting the same is simply unfounded hyperbole.

Cool Hand
True. Unless you're gay. Or poor. Or unemployed. Or Muslim. Or non-Christian. Or pro-CSS. Or of Middle Eastern descent. Or care about the environment. Or prefer substance over style. Or wish to have an abortion. Or care about the Constitution.

I feel sorry for the 50,000,000+ Americans who wanted something better for their country.

[Dingfod]

An excerpt from Slate's Simple but Effective -Why you keep losing to this idiot (http://www.slate.com/id/2109079/)

I think this is the answer: Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity.

Bush is a very simple man. You may think that makes him a bad president, as I do, but lots of people don't--and there are more of them than there are of us.I queried one of my moderately intelligent pro-Bush workmates as to whether he thought he was smarter than Bush. He said no way, Bush made it to the Presidency, he must be pretty smart. I said "Nuff said, no more questions about why you support Bush."

It's not just that people were voting against Bush, some that did vote for him probably were just not sold on Kerry at all. I blame the core constituency of the Democratic Party, the ones that voted for Kerry in the Primaries and Caucuses. I like Kerry as a person and think he would probably have been a great President, but why, oh, why didn't someone with a bit of charisma and a lack of carcasses in their armoire make it to the top of the heap? Why not Howard Dean? Dean, policy wonk that he is, can at least articulate himself in a way that makes sense. Kerry: I have a plan to [blah, blah, blah]. OK, let's hear the motherfucker. Oh, no time? Too boring? See the website? WTF, over?

It wasn't that Bush was misunderestimated, Bush has strategery, simple plans, simple enough for the bulk of his supporters to understand:
Dominate the rest of the world with our military might. Those terra-ists will tremble before our might, third world dictators will shit down both legs, the Chinese and Russians will cowtow to our every whim.
All those promised millions of new jobs will come soon after the first of the year in the form of a skills draft, followed shortly by a military draft, full employment, he's said it himself, is his goal.
His health care plan is for poor sick people to get to dieing, the sooner the better, but if you're rich or even semi-rich and self-employed as many are, you'll be able to deduct your health insurance premiums.
His edumacation plan is to make us all as smart as he is.
His economic plan is discredited Reaganomics reincarnated, the Trickled-On Theory, where all us non-rich, thirsty, wait for the rich to piss from the balconies of their ivory towers.
Social Security, bankrupt it, if we're fucking the poor sick people, we might as well fuck the poor old ones too.

Woohoo!!!

[godfry n. glad]

Okay... I went to see Team America: World Police on election night. My friend and I didn't want to sit through the interminable speculations of the pundits. At least I had a good time until I got home from the cinema and turned on the boob tube.

Strange sensation, that.

godfry

(I see your point, Warn, and quite agree.)

[D. Scarlatti]

I was making a meta point about the bandwagon of opinion that seems to prevail at this particular board, in this particular forum, and in other groups, and in other media.

Well, I'd call that soft pedalling, if not backpedalling. What you did was refer to many members of this online community as "a microcosm of the so-called 'liberal elite' that doesn't fully understand the mindset of 'Middle America.'"

Now I don't take that remark personally, because I think it's laughable, but some people might consider it a bit insulting, especially those that have arisen from, and spend their lives interacting with the denizens of, "Middle America."

But if the mindset of Middle America is represented by political conservatives that drive SUVs at home while their sons and daughters are getting their limbs blown off securing Iraqi oil refineries, then maybe I don't understand it after all.

Or if the mindset of Middle America is unable to draw what seems to me the rather obvious distinction between "moral values" and "religious values," then I guess I don't understand that either. Ultimately I'm unsure whether the fact that I'm an elite renders me incapable of understanding or whether my inability to understand relegates me to elite status.

[godfry n. glad]

Hey... What does it take to have "Middle America" credentials?

Property?
Family?
Chronology?
Geographical placement?

Can we test for this? Is it readily identifiable, or do we have to do searches..even...intimate searches?

(I certainly hope it's nothing like sexing kittens, chicks or bunnies.)

I'd like to know why I do or don't have what it takes to be a "Middle American".

Do we get extra points for actually having been born in the likes of Guatemala or Panama? Or is "Central" different from "Middle" when it comes to "America"? How about Kansas?

Cool Hand?

godfry

[Petra]

But if the mindset of Middle America is represented by political conservatives that drive SUVs at home while their sons and daughters are getting their limbs blown off securing Iraqi oil refineries, then maybe I don't understand it after all.

Or if the mindset of Middle America is unable to draw what seems to me the rather obvious distinction between "moral values" and "religious values," then I guess I don't understand that either. Ultimately I'm unsure whether the fact that I'm an elite renders me incapable of understanding or whether my inability to understand relegates me to elite status.

Scarlatti, that was poetry.

I most certainly do not mean that in the syrupy flowery slightly angsty way that poetry sometimes has a bad rap for. I mean that in the way that you have so succinctly created a powerful image that encapsulates in economic visual frames all I have been too inarticulate to express all this time.

Fuck you're good.

:bow: :bow: :bow:

[Cool Hand]

I was making a meta point about the bandwagon of opinion that seems to prevail at this particular board, in this particular forum, and in other groups, and in other media.

Well, I'd call that soft pedalling, if not backpedalling. What you did was refer to many members of this online community as "a microcosm of the so-called 'liberal elite' that doesn't fully understand the mindset of 'Middle America.'"

Now I don't take that remark personally, because I think it's laughable, but some people might consider it a bit insulting, especially those that have arisen from, and spend their lives interacting with the denizens of, "Middle America."

But if the mindset of Middle America is represented by political conservatives that drive SUVs at home while their sons and daughters are getting their limbs blown off securing Iraqi oil refineries, then maybe I don't understand it after all.

Or if the mindset of Middle America is unable to draw what seems to me the rather obvious distinction between "moral values" and "religious values," then I guess I don't understand that either. Ultimately I'm unsure whether the fact that I'm an elite renders me incapable of understanding or whether my inability to understand relegates me to elite status.

I have only one word. Strawman.

Cool Hand

[Petra]

I have only one word. Strawman.

Cool Hand

Strawman, herring, fallacy, delicacy, fatman or strobe, sometimes technicalities are overruled in favour of capturing the essence of something so fully and so economically. The spirit overrules the letter, if you will. Gave me a revelation, dammit.

Thank you, Scarlatti. :bow:

[Godless Dave]

The elite often seem shocked to learn that persons outside their orbits can hold different beliefs and values from theirs.
I think maybe I didn't address this adequately yesterday, Cool Hand, so I'm going to give it another try.

That other voters have differing beliefs and values is not why we are so upset. If Kerry had lost to John McCain, Arlen Specter, or Fred Thompson we would be going "Oh, that sucks" but we wouldn't be freaking out. I didn't expect America to reject Bush on his policies or ideology. I expected them to reject him because he lied us into a war. If lying us into a war is not a good enough reason to dump a president, I don't know what is.

I'm still pissed at the Democrats in Congress for not calling for his impeachment in March of 2003.

[Clutch Munny]

I have only one word. Strawman.


I have more than one word, but let's start with: Evasion.

Look, Scarlatti rather nicely pointed out the vacuousness of this "Middle America" business to which you appealed. (I have already pointed this out on this thread... and also got no response.)

If what you mean by crying strawman is that you didn't intend to apply a meaningless spin point with insulting overtones, then the thing to do is to show that it has some meaningful content.

[D. Scarlatti]

I have only one word. Strawman.

Well then you could have saved a lot of trouble by labelling your original comment as such.

And hey lunachick, thanks for the handjob.

[Socratoad]

Cool Hand, during my rather long life it has been my misfortune to run across far too many people who are able to remain calm, cool and collected when all those about them are wringing their hands in despair ...... the reason for such "cool detached" behaviour is usually because they are too thick to be able to grasp the situation unfolding before their eyes. History is replete with just such incidences and humanity has suffered greatly because of it.

It is my sincere hope that you are not among these cool detached people.

[Godless Dave]

One of the perils of democratic elections is that they allow those who are easily mislead to make major decisions. It's not necessary to fool all the people all of the time, just enough of the people at the right time.


I just added this to the random quotes. Very true.
Great quote, but I wish you had corrected godfry's spelling before adding it to the quote list. It's "misled", not "mislead".

Hey, liv, is there a way to edit existing quotes?

[livius drusus]

Fraid not, Dave. It's been annoying me for ages, too. Eventually I'll browbeat our local tech types into modifying the hack, but until then, our only option is for me to delete it and readd it. Shall I?

[Cool Hand]

Cool Hand, during my rather long life it has been my misfortune to run across far too many people who are able to remain calm, cool and collected when all those about them are wringing their hands in despair ...... the reason for such "cool detached" behaviour is usually because they are too thick to be able to grasp the situation unfolding before their eyes. History is replete with just such incidences and humanity has suffered greatly because of it.

It is my sincere hope that you are not among these cool detached people.

Toad,

Thanks, but surely there can be other possible reasons for keeping a cool head about one. One possible reason might be a deliberate attempt to avoid panicking, especially given that so many others around one seem to be losing it. Personally, I find Chicken Little impressions unattractive and unpersuasive. I find it hard to believe that you would find the ability to remain calm to be a liability. Panicking is usually not regarded as a virture. It is the enemy of reasoned response.

Please allow me to express what I've been repressing in this thread due to what I have perceived to be an inordinate amount of thinly veiled baiting. As you have addressed me calmly and politely in your post above, I will take the opportunity here to try a final time to reiterate what I have tried to express in all of my comments in this thread, save for the first one. I do not mean to imply that all other posters whom I have not responded to directly in this thread have been impolite or panicked, but only that yours is the post that I choose to respond to. To anyone else whom I have not addressed directly, please forgive my not doing so. It is my hope and wish that you might recognize that there are several posts in this thread directed to me by name, and that I might feel a bit overwhelmed by trying to respond to each and every point made, especially when some of them speak to issues far outside my one and only point--the remarkable lack of dissent here and how it reminds me of the lack of dissent among a certain cadre of so many highly visible pundits and reporters. That so many here seem to be expressing shock that the President won another term in office is at least some evidence that there might be a causal connection between the lack of dissent and the shock at the outcome of the election.

I have not commented on any substantive issues in this thread and I remain unwilling to do so in this thread. It was never my intent to foster or engage in any such discussion in this thread, and I thought I had made that quite clear above. My point all along was and still is that dissent about the presidential campaign and our President's being the political anti-Christ or not is practically non-existent on this board. Liv, Adam, and VM (if I've left anyone else out I apologize) all seemed to acknowledge that point and recognize that it might have some merit. Those who have tried to make this particular discussion into anything other than that are engaging in strawman attacks and venting. None of us is immune from falling prey to a tendency to do either of those things; I'm simply trying to refrain from it here. If I'm not engaging anyone in particular by not responding directly, it's likely that I'm not interested in perpetuating either of those in this thread.

I can assure you that if I were posting on one of the Christian or neocon forums that some here apparently frequent, then I would likely be regarded as the board's nuisance of a liberal kook. Look at my custom title--"Nonconformist." Have you considered that I might be living up to that title here? That doesn't mean I'm trolling (I'm not, by the way). It means that I'm not willing to conform to the expected norm so easily. As Liv mentions above, finding dissent here might be cause for introspection rather than inquisition.

I am expressing lament at the lack of dissent here. That lament has been transformed by some into an expression of support for whatever political bone the poster wishes to pick. I hope you will excuse me for not taking the bait in this thread. I reserve the right to do so in any other thread, just as I presume most of us do.

Thanks for your observations and expressing your wish, Toad. I hope you no longer mistake my apparent coolness for detachment. I think there are ways to engage other than expressing indignation or outrage.

Cool Hand

[Godless Dave]

Cool Hand, the reason there is no dissent is because it is an indisputable, documented fact that Bush lied us into a war.

Please see my post above where I talk about how the scenario would have been very different if Kerry had lost to a different Republican politician, one who is not a pig-headed religious fanatic.

[livius drusus]

Sorry Dave, but that's just your particular thing. It doesn't explain the wider culture of this forum at all, which is liberal because most of the people came from another hotbed of liberalism, not because everyone has judiciously examined the facts, come to the conclusion Bush lied about Iraq and then proceded to lose their shit over the election result.

The fact is that there are people here, even people who agree with you that the Bush administration was deceptive in its presentation of the reasons for war, who completely disagree with your rhetorical approach, who completely disagree with the venom directed at people who voted for Bush, who completely disagree that this election sounds the death knell of some American quintessence or whatever.

That is dissent, it has nothing to do with lying politicians, and in my opinion, we could use a shitload more of it around here.

[Socratoad]

Cool Hand, Thank you for such a thoughtful articulate post. I really am not well enough to be postings period, but I had reply to this. As one non-conformist to another I am pleased that I understand you much better than I did before this time. I too feel very uncomfortable going along with the crowd, so to speak. However in all honesty I have derived a certain amount of pleasure on this board not feeling quite so out of step as is usually the case everywhere else on the net or in society in general.

I have a little measuring stick that I use in general as I wend my way through a rather frenetic world and that is if I find myself in agreement with the majority then I know that it is time to sit down and reflect and perhaps reassess my values. Someone much wiser than I said, "The majority is always wrong". And please everyone else do not try to find offence in what I have said cuz I hope that I have made it very clear that I KNOW Bush and Co. is an abomination.

Now please forgive me, both you and others if I do not reply to further posts on this thread as I really must try to rest.

[beyelzu]

Sorry Dave, but that's just your particular thing. It doesn't explain the wider culture of this forum at all, which is liberal because most of the people came from another hotbed of liberalism, not because everyone has judiciously examined the facts, come to the conclusion Bush lied about Iraq and then proceded to lose their shit over the election result.

The fact is that there are people here, even people who agree with you that the Bush administration was deceptive in its presentation of the reasons for war, who completely disagree with your rhetorical approach, who completely disagree with the venom directed at people who voted for Bush, who completely disagree that this election sounds the death knell of some American quintessence or whatever.

That is dissent, it has nothing to do with lying politicians, and in my opinion, we could use a shitload more of it around here.


I am sorry, but either my reading comprehension skills are on the fritz(sp?) again or you didnt come across quite the way you meant.

while dave is off base on there being only one objective reason for not liking bush, nonetheless I think that Bush has been quite the shitty president objectively and it is unsurprising that a group of reasonable intelligent people would hate that he got reelected.

When one considers what happened during his first term, I also think that it is not unreasonable to be concerned about what the next four years will hold.

If people disagree with dave then there is dissent and thus CL is offbase. Even if this dissent is only in the matter of degree or a question of style and approach.

[Godless Dave]

I understand the desire to be calm. IRL I am not doing anything rash, other than ordering provocative bumperstickers to replace my Kerry/Edwards stickers.

Speaking for myself, my reaction to Bush's victory is not only for fear of what will become of the country over the next four years (fears which I think are legitimate), but a profound disappointment that 51% of the electorate can either be fooled that easily or just don't care about war policy being based on lies. That bodes ill for the country's future well beyond the next four years.

[Godless Dave]

while dave is off base on there being only one objective reason for not liking bush, nonetheless I think that Bush has been quite the shitty president objectively and it is unsurprising that a group of reasonable intelligent people would hate that he got reelected.
I'm not saying there is only one objective reason for not liking Bush. But I was trying to point out that there is at least one reason, the Iraq war, that has nothing to do with political ideology. Opposition to a war based on lies is not a conservative or liberal issue. There is plenty of disagreement on this forum about tax policy, the extent of public services we want the government to provide, and many other issues. I was highlighting an issue (admittedly, my pet issue) where, while we are entitled to our opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. And the documented facts are that there was no evidence Iraq had WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda, that Bush's people knew it, and that they lied to the American people about it. I do agree that there is a remote possibility that Bush actually believed the things he was saying and was thus not technically lying. But if that is the case then he is so incompetent that he could be impeached for dereliction of duty.

[beyelzu]

while dave is off base on there being only one objective reason for not liking bush, nonetheless I think that Bush has been quite the shitty president objectively and it is unsurprising that a group of reasonable intelligent people would hate that he got reelected.
I'm not saying there is only one objective reason for not liking Bush. But I was trying to point out that there is at least one reason, the Iraq war, that has nothing to do with political ideology. Opposition to a war based on lies is not a conservative or liberal issue. There is plenty of disagreement on this forum about tax policy, the extent of public services we want the government to provide, and many other issues. I was highlighting an issue (admittedly, my pet issue) where, while we are entitled to our opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. And the documented facts are that there was no evidence Iraq had WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda, that Bush's people knew it, and that they lied to the American people about it. I do agree that there is a remote possibility that Bush actually believed the things he was saying and was thus not technically lying. But if that is the case then he is so incompetent that he could be impeached for dereliction of duty.


I agree. and a fine post.

[Scotty]

Out of curiosity, what was the catalyst that started the whole "gay marrage" issue in the first place? Why did it just come up, appropriatly it seems, just at a point when it would be on a ballot at election time?

I mean, why wasn't it an issue last year, the year before? Why so much press, why judges saying it is unconsitutional to deny the rights?

It sure seems odd that it all happened at just the right time.

It seems too convenient.

-Scott

[Godless Dave]

I agree. It was clear to me from the start that it was a wedge issue brought up to get evangelicals for Bush. Notice that none of the major democratic candidates publicly supported gay marriage, and most did not even bring up civil unions.

Howard Dean is convinced that the Democratic establishment did not want him as the nominee because of his rule in passing the civil unions law in Vermont.

It just goes to show that when we try to distance ourselves from contraversial positions we get labelled as supporting them anyway.

[beyelzu]

I agree. It was clear to me from the start that it was a wedge issue brought up to get evangelicals for Bush. Notice that none of the major democratic candidates publicly supported gay marriage, and most did not even bring up civil unions.

Howard Dean is convinced that the Democratic establishment did not want him as the nominee because of his rule in passing the civil unions law in Vermont.

It just goes to show that when we try to distance ourselves from contraversial positions we get labelled as supporting them anyway.
Interesting, the issue was kind of hanging out but Bush showed his supporters the way when he proposed the Constitutional admendment and he let people know his position without making it a big plank in his reelection platform. Turned out to be great political strategy.

[wade-w]

I do not consider myself a "liberal," at least not in the traditional sense of the word. Depending on who else was running, I could see myself considering a vote for, a moderate Republican like, say, McCain. However, strict separation of church and state and civil liberties are among my own hot buttons when it comes to politics. Between the Patriot Act and his "faith based initiative" I see Bush as a major threat to both. These are major reasons (though not the only ones) I am, as I said earlier, vehemently anti-Bush.

It has nothing to do with what anyone else here thinks, either. I have no qualms about taking unpopular positions; anyone who knows me well will tell you that.

Edited to add: Nor am I "shocked" or even surprised that Bush won the election. I expected it to be a close one. I will, though, admit to being apalled.

[Scotty]

I agree. It was clear to me from the start that it was a wedge issue brought up to get evangelicals for Bush. Notice that none of the major democratic candidates publicly supported gay marriage, and most did not even bring up civil unions.

Howard Dean is convinced that the Democratic establishment did not want him as the nominee because of his rule in passing the civil unions law in Vermont.

It just goes to show that when we try to distance ourselves from contraversial positions we get labelled as supporting them anyway.
Interesting, the issue was kind of hanging out but Bush showed his supporters the way when he proposed the Constitutional admendment and he let people know his position without making it a big plank in his reelection platform. Turned out to be great political strategy.

What a great leader Bush is. He so wants to bring the country together, make harmony and peace.

What a fucker.

-Scott

[wade-w]

Out of curiosity, what was the catalyst that started the whole "gay marrage" issue in the first place? Why did it just come up, appropriatly it seems, just at a point when it would be on a ballot at election time?

I mean, why wasn't it an issue last year, the year before? Why so much press, why judges saying it is unconsitutional to deny the rights?

It sure seems odd that it all happened at just the right time.

It seems too convenient.

-Scott

This is strictly off-the-cuff, and I'll have to think about it for a bit to come up with a more definitive answer. I don't think we can lay this on some Republican plot. My first guess would be the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling upholding Gay Marriage earlier this year. My gut feeling is that this decision is what motivated all or most of the ballot initiatives against gay marriage in the other states.

Yes, it was very convenient. But "too convenient?" :shrug:

[Scotty]

My first guess would be the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling upholding Gay Marriage earlier this year.

Yes, but what started that? That is what I am curious about, what really started the whole idea? Why now? It really wouldn't take much to put it in the spotlight, or didn't.

I mean, I don't want to say "conspiracy" but it did seem to me it came out of the blue. I don't normally associate things that come up with political agenda, I just think about how it affects people in general, but this just bugs me.

-Scott

[beyelzu]

wade,

you dont think bush proposing the constitutional admendment had anything to do with it being an election issue?

[wade-w]

wade,

you dont think bush proposing the constitutional admendment had anything to do with it being an election issue?

Oh, I'm quite sure that was his handler's intent. But I see it as more a target of opportunity than something that had been planned.

[Cool Hand]

Out of curiosity, what was the catalyst that started the whole "gay marrage" issue in the first place? Why did it just come up, appropriatly it seems, just at a point when it would be on a ballot at election time?

I mean, why wasn't it an issue last year, the year before? Why so much press, why judges saying it is unconsitutional to deny the rights?

It sure seems odd that it all happened at just the right time.

It seems too convenient.

-Scott

This is strictly off-the-cuff, and I'll have to think about it for a bit to come up with a more definitive answer. I don't think we can lay this on some Republican plot. My first guess would be the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling upholding Gay Marriage earlier this year. My gut feeling is that this decision is what motivated all or most of the ballot initiatives against gay marriage in the other states.

Yes, it was very convenient. But "too convenient?" :shrug:

Wade,

That's been my take all along too. I don't see any conspiracy. I see political appropriating and opportuning. Big surprise.

Cool Hand

[edit: cross post with wade's above. yep]

[D. Scarlatti]

One thing's for sure, it's clever (although not necessarily effective) lawyering to set "bait" in page one of a thread and then by page three characterize the on point responses as more of the same, worse even, and furthermore to artificially set oneself above the fray thus created by deigning not to engage.

I'm not buying that tactic, and I'm afraid I don't see how any constructive debate is furthered by alleging one's opponent is incapable of understanding a certain concept, and subsequently dismissing that opponent's protestations with a wave of the hand.

[beyelzu]

wade,

you dont think bush proposing the constitutional admendment had anything to do with it being an election issue?

Oh, I'm quite sure that was his handler's intent. But I see it as more a target of opportunity than something that had been planned.
I agree about the target of opportunity but I think the move energized evangelical xians and helped put the issue sideways on the table.

[wade-w]

I agree about the target of opportunity but I think the move energized evangelical xians and helped put the issue sideways on the table.

Yes, but Scotty's question was about the catalyst for making this an issue.

[Cool Hand]

One thing's for sure, it's clever (although not necessarily effective) lawyering to set "bait" in page one of a thread and then by page three characterize the on point responses as more of the same, worse even, and furthermore to artificially set oneself above the fray thus created by deigning not to engage.

I'm not buying that tactic, and I'm afraid I don't see how any constructive debate is furthered by alleging one's opponent is incapable of understanding a certain concept, and subsequently dismissing that opponent's protestations with a wave of the hand.

Well, thanks for the back-handed compliment I suppose, but I suggest you consider the possibility that I actually meant my observations on Page 1. You can agree or not. You have elected to impute an ulterior motive to me. That's your perogative, but it's not necessarily correct.

I find it ironic that you purport above to wish to foster constructive debate with me in this thread. You impute malevolent intent to me and you build strawmen to knock down. I have no doubt you recognize that neither tactic fosters constructive debate.

Cool Hand

[livius drusus]

I am sorry, but either my reading comprehension skills are on the fritz(sp?) again or you didnt come across quite the way you meant.

Very likely the latter. Sorry, bey.

while dave is off base on there being only one objective reason for not liking bush, nonetheless I think that Bush has been quite the shitty president objectively and it is unsurprising that a group of reasonable intelligent people would hate that he got reelected.

Well, the thing is, it doesn't surprise me that a group of reasonably intelligent, well-meaning people would have voted for him. I know several of them personally, in fact.

It doesn't surprise me that many people here hate that he got elected, but it does surprise me that I can't post a thread seeking to examine the obviously huge cracks in my approach to issues without getting it's everybody else's fault cause they voted for a liar or this country is hopelessly broken and I'm leaving responses.

When one considers what happened during his first term, I also think that it is not unreasonable to be concerned about what the next four years will hold.

Indeed. I don't think I suggested it was.

If people disagree with dave then there is dissent and thus CL is offbase. Even if this dissent is only in the matter of degree or a question of style and approach.

Cool Hand specifically qualified his statement on the general lack of dissent, however, to include those of us who do take a different approach. Dave's reply, otoh, made no such qualification.

[Godless Dave]

Well, the thing is, it doesn't surprise me that a group of reasonably intelligent, well-meaning people would have voted for him. I know several of them personally, in fact.
Well it surprises the fuck out of me and I still don't understand it. It's like voting for Johnson after finding out the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated.

[beyelzu]

I would like any Bush supporter to come here and tell me exactly why they voted for him.


I would be on my best behavior.


I really dont understand how somebody makes a rational decision for Bush.


A friend of mine did vote for him, I think, but I dont think he has been exposed to enough facts about Bush. He listens to alot of talk radio and believes that weapons of mass destruction were found.

[livius drusus]

Well, the thing is, it doesn't surprise me that a group of reasonably intelligent, well-meaning people would have voted for him. I know several of them personally, in fact.
Well it surprises the fuck out of me and I still don't understand it. It's like voting for Johnson after finding out the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated.

You think people wouldn't have? Hell, you think they didn't? I'm sure there are people out there who knew it was bogus in August and still voted for him in November just because a Goldwater presidency seemed like a worse option than reelecting a president who invented some pretext to fight a war that they deemed to be just on ideological grounds.

[Clutch Munny]

Cool Hand, during my rather long life it has been my misfortune to run across far too many people who are able to remain calm, cool and collected when all those about them are wringing their hands in despair ...... the reason for such "cool detached" behaviour is usually because they are too thick to be able to grasp the situation unfolding before their eyes. History is replete with just such incidences and humanity has suffered greatly because of it.

It is my sincere hope that you are not among these cool detached people.

Toad,

Thanks, but surely there can be other possible reasons for keeping a cool head about one. One possible reason might be a deliberate attempt to avoid panicking, especially given that so many others around one seem to be losing it. Personally, I find Chicken Little impressions unattractive and unpersuasive. I find it hard to believe that you would find the ability to remain calm to be a liability. Panicking is usually not regarded as a virture. It is the enemy of reasoned response.

Please allow me to express what I've been repressing in this thread due to what I have perceived to be an inordinate amount of thinly veiled baiting. As you have addressed me calmly and politely in your post above, I will take the opportunity here to try a final time to reiterate what I have tried to express in all of my comments in this thread, save for the first one. I do not mean to imply that all other posters whom I have not responded to directly in this thread have been impolite or panicked, but only that yours is the post that I choose to respond to. To anyone else whom I have not addressed directly, please forgive my not doing so. It is my hope and wish that you might recognize that there are several posts in this thread directed to me by name, and that I might feel a bit overwhelmed by trying to respond to each and every point made, especially when some of them speak to issues far outside my one and only point--the remarkable lack of dissent here and how it reminds me of the lack of dissent among a certain cadre of so many highly visible pundits and reporters. That so many here seem to be expressing shock that the President won another term in office is at least some evidence that there might be a causal connection between the lack of dissent and the shock at the outcome of the election.

I have not commented on any substantive issues in this thread and I remain unwilling to do so in this thread. It was never my intent to foster or engage in any such discussion in this thread, and I thought I had made that quite clear above. My point all along was and still is that dissent about the presidential campaign and our President's being the political anti-Christ or not is practically non-existent on this board. Liv, Adam, and VM (if I've left anyone else out I apologize) all seemed to acknowledge that point and recognize that it might have some merit. Those who have tried to make this particular discussion into anything other than that are engaging in strawman attacks and venting. None of us is immune from falling prey to a tendency to do either of those things; I'm simply trying to refrain from it here. If I'm not engaging anyone in particular by not responding directly, it's likely that I'm not interested in perpetuating either of those in this thread.

I can assure you that if I were posting on one of the Christian or neocon forums that some here apparently frequent, then I would likely be regarded as the board's nuisance of a liberal kook. Look at my custom title--"Nonconformist." Have you considered that I might be living up to that title here? That doesn't mean I'm trolling (I'm not, by the way). It means that I'm not willing to conform to the expected norm so easily. As Liv mentions above, finding dissent here might be cause for introspection rather than inquisition.

I am expressing lament at the lack of dissent here. That lament has been transformed by some into an expression of support for whatever political bone the poster wishes to pick. I hope you will excuse me for not taking the bait in this thread. I reserve the right to do so in any other thread, just as I presume most of us do.

Thanks for your observations and expressing your wish, Toad. I hope you no longer mistake my apparent coolness for detachment. I think there are ways to engage other than expressing indignation or outrage.

Cool Hand

Cool Hand, this looks like nothing so much as revisionist history.

You have ignored or responded summarily to reasoned critiques of actual things that you actually said. To take a salient example: characterizing your interlocutors as a "liberal elite" that is out of touch with "Middle America".

If what you are now saying is that you did not mean to say this, then retracting it should make everyone happy -- including you, presumably.

If you did mean it, then it is simply false that those who have challenged you about this (lucidly and reasonably, to my mind) have been changing the topic, strawmanning your claims, extending the discussion "to issues far outside" those you explicitly raised, or anything similar.

If you meant it, but simply cannot be bothered to defend it, saying so up-front would be the best course of action -- whatever implicatures it might send.

[D. Scarlatti]

Exactly right. It wasn't any of the "elite" that suggested some apparently pervasive concept was not understood.

[Petra]

And hey lunachick, thanks for the handjob.


Hey handsome, my pleasure. :wink:

Thank you for coming.

[Cool Hand]

Cool Hand, this looks like nothing so much as revisionist history.

You have ignored or responded summarily to reasoned critiques of actual things that you actually said. To take a salient example: characterizing your interlocutors as a "liberal elite" that is out of touch with "Middle America".

If what you are now saying is that you did not mean to say this, then retracting it should make everyone happy -- including you, presumably.

If you did mean it, then it is simply false that those who have challenged you about this (lucidly and reasonably, to my mind) have been changing the topic, strawmanning your claims, extending the discussion "to issues far outside" those you explicitly raised, or anything similar.

If you meant it, but simply cannot be bothered to defend it, saying so up-front would be the best course of action -- whatever implicatures it might send.
CM,

This is exactly what I was trying to avoid. You and others have focused on the trees rather than the forest. If you must persist in getting a substantive response from me, if you must pick nits rather than simply digest my point as a whole, then I will indulge you thus far. I simply didn't wish to get into an interminable argument over what "liberal elite" or "Middle America" mean. It really isn't material whether anyone has a beef with those rhetorical phrases or not. Contrary to what you or someone else said much earlier, neither of those phrases are vacuous. I suspect you know very well what I intended when I chose them, perhaps without my giving due sensitivity to the kind of unforseen response they would elicit. I meant no insult. My point was about being so caught up in back slapping each other that the liberal elite (or whatever you or anyone else prefers to call the prevailing orthodoxy here or elsewhere that President Bush's re-election would lead the U.S. to utter ruin--frankly, I'm not at all wedded to that term or any other; I had the mainstream press from the NE U.S. in mind at the time, whatever that is) fail to see that a large chunk of the nation--Middle America--simply disagrees. It matters not why that chunk might disagree, or even who might comprise that chunk. That is not the issue at all. The point was about the lack of dissent and its blinding effect on the non-dissenters.

In retrospect, I suppose that I shouldn't have used the term "microcosm." It might have been more appropriate to say "analog." My poor phrasing still shouldn't undermine the point.

For Batman's sake, this heightened parsing of phrases that I dropped without nearly as much thought in my choice as you and others seem to have credited me with having done is annoying. I now find myself feeling compelled to explain why I chose particular words to express a meaning when I could have chosen other words (Apparently at least a few others understood my meaning clearly enough the first time). I find that maddening under the circumstances, and antithetical to reasoned debate. You and some dogged others in this thread have tried to tease out exactly what I meant, despite my telling you already, by claiming I'm revising my meaning. By doing so, you are suppressing debate, rather than encouraging it.

Is that really what you intended? I suspect not. Might you approach remarks like mine above with a little less animosity next time? If not, why should you expect me to respond?

To at least a few posters in this thread my declarations of my intent do not seem to matter. If that is the case, I cannot understand why anyone would bother pursuing me for an explanation. If you do not believe me, then my explanations would seem to carry no more weight than my OPs.

Cool Hand

[Clutch Munny]

CM,

This is exactly what I was trying to avoid. You and others have focused on the trees rather than the forest.

Again, it's hard to understand why you would think this. I quoted and engaged two main points comprising most of the (contentful) text in the post to which I was responding. Really. Check your post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18962&postcount=24) and then check mine. (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19119&postcount=52) Your claim here is just wrong.


If you must persist in getting a substantive response from me, if you must pick nits rather than simply digest my point as a whole, then I will indulge you thus far.

...

I suspect you know very well what I intended when I chose them, perhaps without my giving due sensitivity to the kind of unforseen response they would elicit.

Now, what is this stuff supposed to elicit? Constructive debate? Who's attributing stupidity or bad motives here?

Ah, well. I guess we'd all do well to remember that insult is always easier to detect inbound than outbound.

Anyhow, of course I have never said or thought that you didn't mean exactly what you said -- as you've since confirmed. My concern has been whether the point that you meant to convey actually holds water, or whether it's largely an amalgam of loaded terms with no real cash value.


My point was about being so caught up in back slapping each other that the liberal elite (or whatever you or anyone else prefers to call the prevailing orthodoxy here or elsewhere that President Bush's re-election would lead the U.S. to utter ruin--frankly, I'm not at all wedded to that term or any other; I had the mainstream press from the NE U.S. in mind at the time, whatever that is) fail to see that a large chunk of the nation--Middle America--simply disagrees.

And my point was that there is simply no reason to believe any of this -- except, perhaps, that a majority of people in here dislike Bush and wish he hadn't won the election.

There is reason -- argued by me, without response -- to think that this claim about "Middle America" is sheer confabulation unrecoverable by any serious demographic analysis, and that the characterization of a "liberal elite" is useful only for its systematically constructed connotations and not for any correct classification of liberals that it might provide. The only truth in the offing here, once the unsupportable pseudo-diagnosis is factored out, will be something trivial like, The country is nearly evenly split between D and R voters, with some local variations.


For Batman's sake, this heightened parsing of phrases that I dropped without nearly as much thought in my choice as you and others seem to have credited me with having done is annoying.

This is a baffling strawman. What have I credited you with, except meaning what you say? "Heightened parsing" I just don't get.

You said,

I'll go out on a limb and state, probably without adequate foundation due to the population sample's being far too small, that this board might be regarded as a microcosm of the so-called "liberal elite" that doesn't fully understand the mindset of "Middle America." The elite often seem shocked to learn that persons outside their orbits can hold different beliefs and values from theirs.

What "heightened parsing" is involved in pointing out, with argument, that these claims have not been justified, and probably cannot be, because the key concepts are duff?

BTW, you've neglected to mention that I also responded to this:


We are witnessing that there is simply not an overwhelming mandate in the U.S. to run President Bush out of office, as the Democrats have seemed to believe in the past months.

...by pointing out that it could only make sense as a knock on Democrat predictions if the Dems had been predicting something other than a very close election. Is this "heightened parsing", or just pointing out the (rather obvious) confound of an unwarranted claim?


I now find myself feeling compelled to explain why I chose particular words to express a meaning when I could have chosen other words

So choose 'em, for pete's sake. Give an actual argument recovering the fairly plain meaning of the claims quoted above. Explain why, say, 55-45, or 51-49, or even 60-40, in Arizona, Iowa and Indiana indicates the "liberal elite's" failure to connect with something called "Middle America". Explain whether, with a two-percent swing in votes, we would now be talking about a "conservative elite" and their failure to understand "Middle America". Cite the non-trivial Dem claims that the race wouldn't be close on account of anti-Bush feeling. Why on earth should it be oppressive to expect that clearly expressed arguments against an explicit claims should get a response?

[Cool Hand]

CM,

This is exactly what I was trying to avoid. You and others have focused on the trees rather than the forest.

Again, it's hard to understand why you would think this. I quoted and engaged two main points comprising most of the (contentful) text in the post to which I was responding. Really. Check your post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18962&postcount=24) and then check mine. (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19119&postcount=52) Your claim here is just wrong.


OK, CM, I see that you did address my points substantively, and you did make some interesting points. Unfortunately, we were talking past each other, which is my fault. I hope you recognize that as several others also tried to engage me at about the same time, I most likely got confused as to who was saying what. Also, I failed to give your comments due regard. I apologize.

Unfortunately, I have written so much in this thread in a defensive mode and have been so determined to stick just to my point, flawed or not, that I have exhausted my enthusiasm for it. I hope that perhaps we can address some of these or related issues at another time in another thread. If not, then I hope we can discuss other issues in a thoughtful, respectful manner. I see that you tried, but I did not afford you due respect in responding. Again, I'm sorry for that.

I see that I was unduly dismissive of your thoughtful and mostly polite remarks (although you have to admit that your "dumb schemas" retort in your OP was not the nicest tone on which to open a mutual dialogue). I admit that my OP on the subject matter may have sounded insensitive, but I really didn't mean it in the insulting way that some took it.

On this subject and in this thread, I fold. I hope to "see" you here again soon.

Cool Hand

[Clutch Munny]

you have to admit that your "dumb schemas" retort in your OP was not the nicest tone on which to open a mutual dialogue


You're right, I do have to admit that. I meant to attribute the dumbness to the media that infect our thinking with such idioms -- ie, I was picturing you as the victim, not as the villain -- but either way it was sharp words. Thanks for your reply.

[godfry n. glad]

I believe the pot goes to Clutch Munny.

godfry

[livius drusus]

/me giggles
That was very wild west sounding, godfry. You're the pianist with the arm garters and the green eyeshade, aren't you?

[Clutch Munny]

I believe the pot goes to Clutch Munny.

Ah'm yuh huckleberry...


But seriously. There's no pot. I hate thinking of debates that way. And if there were a pot, it would be split with Cool Hand. His polite reconsideration of a somewhat heated exchange was, as Jane's Addiction would put it, ocean-sized.

[livius drusus]

Yeah, but you're kind of wearing a poncho and gold spurs and his bandana uncovers a glimpse of rugged chest, right?

[Cool Hand]

I believe the pot goes to Clutch Munny.

Ah'm yuh huckleberry...


But seriously. There's no pot. I hate thinking of debates that way. And if there were a pot, it would be split with Cool Hand. His polite reconsideration of a somewhat heated exchange was, as Jane's Addiction would put it, ocean-sized.

Thank you, Clutch Munny, for being so gracious about it.

I quite agree that there is no pot, and I don't like thinking of debates or discussions in that way either. Antagonism is not necessary for a debate. Opposition is, but one can oppose positions without intentionally antagonizing one's opponent.

Discussions do not even require opposition. Smooth ones do require some degree of mutual respect among the participants, however.

Cool Hand

[godfry n. glad]

* livius drusus giggles
That was very wild west sounding, godfry. You're the pianist with the arm garters and the green eyeshade, aren't you?

Close...I can't play the piano worth a dam. I was a player, though. At the table, as it were. But Clutch Munny's hand is much better than mine, and now Cool Hand has folded. It's clear to me as to whom the pot belongs.

Jus' a poker player. Tha's all.

godfry

[livius drusus]

Hmm... Now I'm thinking you might be the Iago type standing casually at the bar with one boot up on the rail.

[Cool Hand]

Jus' a poker player. Tha's all.

godfry

Me too, godfry, hence my usage of fold.

Cool Hand

[godfry n. glad]

Hmm... Now I'm thinking you might be the Iago type standing casually at the bar with one boot up on the rail.

Nah... Wrong visualization. It's more like the short, balding, bearded, crusty, wisened, dusty, old prospector with his poke o'gold and smart mouth. Y'know...with his jenny tied up outside, ready to light out into the mountains.

Y'know, the kind that gets up and moves away when it's time.

I can't tell you who that Iago type fella is...

godfry

[wade-w]

Poker? Did someone say Poker?

/me shuffles the deck.

What's the game tonight? Texas Hold 'Em? Seven Card High Low? Omaha?

[Clutch Munny]

Poker? Did someone say Poker?

* wade-w shuffles the deck.

What's the game tonight? Texas Hold 'Em? Seven Card High Low? Omaha?

Everything wild.

Hey, I got five wild cards!

[wade-w]

Everything wild.

Hey, I got five wild cards!

Sorry, Clutch. This is a REAL poker game. No wild cards allowed. You can play "Go Fish" with the other kids if you like.

[Goliath]

Cool Hand,

I have lived in the Midwest my whole life, and I have been liberal for most of my life. Compared to some people, I am also somewhat elite (I have a job with a high amount of prestiege and make a decent living), so I could be considered to be a member of the "liberal elite." However, I am not out of touch with "Middle America."

Please don't speak for me ever again.

[livius drusus]

I'll go out on a limb and state, probably without adequate foundation due to the population sample's being far too small, that this board might be regarded as a microcosm of the so-called "liberal elite" that doesn't fully understand the mindset of "Middle America."

IOW, he wasn't even remotely speaking for you, Goliath, and what he did say he qualified extensively, so please stop stuffing words in his mouth.

Now, if you want to internalize his general statement and make it specific, then that's your choice, but that's you speaking for you, not him. You say you could be considered the liberal elite. Do you also claim to "fully understand the mindset of middle America"?

[godfry n. glad]

I'll go out on a limb and state, probably without adequate foundation due to the population sample's being far too small, that this board might be regarded as a microcosm of the so-called "liberal elite" that doesn't fully understand the mindset of "Middle America."

IOW, he wasn't even remotely speaking for you, Goliath, and what he did say he qualified extensively, so please stop stuffing words in his mouth.

Now, if you want to internalize his general statement and make it specific, then that's your choice, but that's you speaking for you, not him. You say you could be considered the liberal elite. Do you also claim to "fully understand the mindset of middle America"?

I'm still waiting for Cool Hand to define "Middle America" and "liberal elite".

I'd also like him to explain why a large number of the nation's legal scholars can be dismissed as "Carvillian" in regards to Bush v. Gore.

Also...I'm not sure all that hedging excuses anything.

I'm not impressed. I still don't trust him.

...and I don't claim to speak for any but myself.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

Wrong thread, godfry. The "Cool Hand is the red Devil" thread is "Us vs. Them".

[Cool Hand]

I'll go out on a limb and state, probably without adequate foundation due to the population sample's being far too small, that this board might be regarded as a microcosm of the so-called "liberal elite" that doesn't fully understand the mindset of "Middle America."

IOW, he wasn't even remotely speaking for you, Goliath, and what he did say he qualified extensively, so please stop stuffing words in his mouth.

Now, if you want to internalize his general statement and make it specific, then that's your choice, but that's you speaking for you, not him. You say you could be considered the liberal elite. Do you also claim to "fully understand the mindset of middle America"?

I'm still waiting for Cool Hand to define "Middle America" and "liberal elite".

I'd also like him to explain why a large number of the nation's legal scholars can be dismissed as "Carvillian" in regards to Bush v. Gore.

Also...I'm not sure all that hedging excuses anything.

I'm not impressed. I still don't trust him.

...and I don't claim to speak for any but myself.

godfry

Gee, godfry, may I suggest that you don't hold your breath?

No amount of hostile, obnoxious, insulting baiting is going to get me to respond to you in the manner you demand. On the other hand, if you would extend me just the slightest bit of respect I might.

In the meantime, I could just tell you off with "Fuck you, obnoxious prick."

Looky there, I just did.

Cool Hand

[godfry n. glad]

I'll go out on a limb and state, probably without adequate foundation due to the population sample's being far too small, that this board might be regarded as a microcosm of the so-called "liberal elite" that doesn't fully understand the mindset of "Middle America."

IOW, he wasn't even remotely speaking for you, Goliath, and what he did say he qualified extensively, so please stop stuffing words in his mouth.

Now, if you want to internalize his general statement and make it specific, then that's your choice, but that's you speaking for you, not him. You say you could be considered the liberal elite. Do you also claim to "fully understand the mindset of middle America"?

I'm still waiting for Cool Hand to define "Middle America" and "liberal elite".

I'd also like him to explain why a large number of the nation's legal scholars can be dismissed as "Carvillian" in regards to Bush v. Gore.

Also...I'm not sure all that hedging excuses anything.

I'm not impressed. I still don't trust him.

...and I don't claim to speak for any but myself.

godfry

Gee, godfry, may I suggest that you don't hold your breath?

No amount of hostile, obnoxious, insulting baiting is going to get me to respond to you in the manner you demand. On the other hand, if you would extend me just the slightest bit of respect I might.

In the meantime, I could just tell you off with "Fuck you, obnoxious prick."

Looky there, I just did.

Cool Hand



Why, looky there, you certainly did...And while still failing to respond to direct request. You instead respond with direct insults. Do you feel all better now?

More reason to be totally unimpressed.

So... Given your advanced use of language, I take it you're from the Cheney staff? His speechwriter, perhaps?

godfry


(...and vm, he's no 'red Devil'...merely an elitist in his own mind.)

[viscousmemories]

(...and vm, he's no 'red Devil'...merely an elitist in his own mind.)
I went with "Great Satan" when I was going off on LadyShea in the other thread, and it has a much better ring to it. I'm a bit embarassed about the "red Devil" comment now.

In any case I believe you have Cool Hand all wrong. If you expected him to give some kind of reasoned response to your repeated accusations that he is a liar, I don't know why. Ironically, though, that other thread is peppered with people accusing him of imagining such insults here. Go figger.

[godfry n. glad]

(...and vm, he's no 'red Devil'...merely an elitist in his own mind.)
I went with "Great Satan" when I was going off on LadyShea in the other thread, and it has a much better ring to it. I'm a bit embarassed about the "red Devil" comment now.

In any case I believe you have Cool Hand all wrong. If you expected him to give some kind of reasoned response to your repeated accusations that he is a liar, I don't know why. Ironically, though, that other thread is peppered with people accusing him of imagining such insults here. Go figger.

Yeah... go figger.

He strolls in here like he's hot shit and lays down his crap like it was asphalt. Proceeds to label us to suit his fancy and refuses to define the labels. I think he has more the traits of a honest-to-goodness troll than many I've seen.

Hey, it's his opinion and he's entitled to it. But I don't have to agree, and I don't.

godfry :fuming:

[viscousmemories]

Sounds like what a lot of people said about you when you came to HH. As it turns out they were as wrong about you as you are about Cool Hand. I defended you then*, I'm defending him now. I'm very seriously considering changing the FF motto to "Where hate is a family value."

Well okay, not THEN per se. I was one of your attackers then. But after you left I stood up for you. :P

[beyelzu]

(...and vm, he's no 'red Devil'...merely an elitist in his own mind.)
I went with "Great Satan" when I was going off on LadyShea in the other thread, and it has a much better ring to it. I'm a bit embarassed about the "red Devil" comment now.

In any case I believe you have Cool Hand all wrong. If you expected him to give some kind of reasoned response to your repeated accusations that he is a liar, I don't know why. Ironically, though, that other thread is peppered with people accusing him of imagining such insults here. Go figger.

Yeah... go figger.

He strolls in here like he's hot shit and lays down his crap like it was asphalt. Proceeds to label us to suit his fancy and refuses to define the labels. I think he has more the traits of a honest-to-goodness troll than many I've seen.

Hey, it's his opinion and he's entitled to it. But I don't have to agree, and I don't.

godfry :fuming:


are you seriously calling him a troll,

bullshit.

I have disagreed with him a good bit, but I dont think that he is intentionally trolling and accusing him of that all sideways like isnt clever its just fucking stupid.

[Goliath]

I'll go out on a limb and state, probably without adequate foundation due to the population sample's being far too small, that this board might be regarded as a microcosm of the so-called "liberal elite" that doesn't fully understand the mindset of "Middle America."

IOW, he wasn't even remotely speaking for you, Goliath,


Actually, I believe he was. I am a member of this board, I am liberal, I am (again, to some extent) elite. Therefore I "may" be a member of the so-called "liberal elite", whence, by Cool Hand's acid-filled accusation, I may not understand "Middle America."

But I do understand "Middle America." I grew up here. So CH can consequently go fuck himself. He's demonstrably wrong.

[Cool Hand]

I'll go out on a limb and state, probably without adequate foundation due to the population sample's being far too small, that this board might be regarded as a microcosm of the so-called "liberal elite" that doesn't fully understand the mindset of "Middle America."

IOW, he wasn't even remotely speaking for you, Goliath,


Actually, I believe he was. I am a member of this board, I am liberal, I am (again, to some extent) elite. Therefore I "may" be a member of the so-called "liberal elite", whence, by Cool Hand's acid-filled accusation, I may not understand "Middle America."

But I do understand "Middle America." I grew up here. So CH can consequently go fuck himself. He's demonstrably wrong.

What I said is "acid filled?" If so, then I don't want to know with what your remarks above and in the "Us vs. Them" thread are filled.

Dude, have you thought about anger management classes? Get a grip.

Cool Hand

[Goliath]

What I said is "acid filled?"

Yes. You have not only indirectly accused me of being a Bush-supporter (again, an insult for which I will die before forgiving you) but you also have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of not knowing anything about the area that I've spent all of my fucking life in.

You seem to be an extremely angry and unhappy person. Then again, so am I (for the time being).

[Cool Hand]

What I said is "acid filled?"

Yes. You have not only indirectly accused me of being a Bush-supporter (again, an insult for which I will die before forgiving you) but you also have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of not knowing anything about the area that I've spent all of my fucking life in.



OK, Francis.

I have done no such thing. You are exhibiting the very kind of knee-jerk reactionary response that I find so ugly here. I accused you of nothing. Anything you read into my remarks at which you take such offense is due to poor phrasing on my part, poor reading comprehension on your part, or some combination of the two. Take your pick. Any way you slice it, it's a simple misunderstanding. Your reaction to that misunderstanding is very disproportionate to it. It's a knee-jerk response, not a thoughtful one. That's what I find ugly about it.

In the meantime, you have no idea what my politics are.


You seem to be an extremely angry and unhappy person. Then again, so am I (for the time being).

That's an unfounded perception on your part. I'm not angry. I'm disappointed. This is supposed to be a freethought forum, but apparently only certain thoughts are allowed by the prevailing culture. You don't seem to get that.

Your lack of comprehension doesn't make for my being angry or unhappy.

Am I being insulting now? Well, I'm not being polite, as I am responding to your being obnoxious and hostile to me without adequate justification. The justification you believe you have for responding to me as you are is imagined, not real.

I'll keep calling you Francis as long as you keep addressing me in such a hostile tone. Sergeant Hulka told Francis to lighten up because he was being a paranoid asshole. If the boot fits...

Cool Hand

[Goliath]

OK, Francis.

Guess what? My name still isn't Francis.

And 10 years from now? Nope. It still won't be Francis.

And when I'm on my deathbed? Nope. Still not Francis.



I have done no such thing. You are exhibiting the very kind of knee-jerk reactionary response that I find so ugly here.



Bullshit. You've said that many on this board may be a part of the "liberal elite" and hence out of touch with "Middle America" (and I note that you still haven't explained exactly what you mean by these terms).



I accused you of nothing.



You are a liar. You have indirectly accused me of being a Bush supporter (by saying "'they' are us", referring to "them" as Bush-supporters). Even vm hasn't leveled a single insult towards me as atrocious as that.



I'm not angry. I'm disappointed.



So be it. I'm not only disappointed, but saddened that someone on this board would not only insult me so deeply as you have, but then rewrite history and claim that no such insult ever occurred.

[livius drusus]

I'll go out on a limb and state, probably without adequate foundation due to the population sample's being far too small, that this board might be regarded as a microcosm of the so-called "liberal elite" that doesn't fully understand the mindset of "Middle America."

IOW, he wasn't even remotely speaking for you, Goliath,


Actually, I believe he was. I am a member of this board, I am liberal, I am (again, to some extent) elite. Therefore I "may" be a member of the so-called "liberal elite", whence, by Cool Hand's acid-filled accusation, I may not understand "Middle America."

But I do understand "Middle America." I grew up here. So CH can consequently go fuck himself. He's demonstrably wrong.

Since he used the word "may" he didn't accuse anyone of anything. Since it was a generalization, it wasn't about you anyway. I would expect you, of all people, to get that. Your behavior here is opprobrious. You have personalized a qualified generalization to the point of high dudgeon and viciousness, a behavior you have bemoaned many, many times when done to you. I am repulsed by your posts in this thread and will address them no further.

[Goliath]

Since he used the word "may" he didn't accuse anyone of anything.

That doesn't make what he's said any less insulting. I am the ultimate authority as to what I find insulting, not you.


I am repulsed by your posts in this thread and will address them no further.

Then there's no need to address further anything else in your latest vicious reply.

[godfry n. glad]

(...and vm, he's no 'red Devil'...merely an elitist in his own mind.)
I went with "Great Satan" when I was going off on LadyShea in the other thread, and it has a much better ring to it. I'm a bit embarassed about the "red Devil" comment now.

In any case I believe you have Cool Hand all wrong. If you expected him to give some kind of reasoned response to your repeated accusations that he is a liar, I don't know why. Ironically, though, that other thread is peppered with people accusing him of imagining such insults here. Go figger.

Yeah... go figger.

He strolls in here like he's hot shit and lays down his crap like it was asphalt. Proceeds to label us to suit his fancy and refuses to define the labels. I think he has more the traits of a honest-to-goodness troll than many I've seen.

Hey, it's his opinion and he's entitled to it. But I don't have to agree, and I don't.

godfry :fuming:


are you seriously calling him a troll,

bullshit.

I have disagreed with him a good bit, but I dont think that he is intentionally trolling and accusing him of that all sideways like isnt clever its just fucking stupid.

Read it again, Bub. I said I think he has more of the traits of a troll than many. He likes to act as though he knows more than all put together here and when called on it, he refuses to respond. He throws around incendiary terminology and when called on it, won't even acknowledge those who call him on it and refuses to define said terms...probably because it would show him to be the asshole he really is.

That, in my book are traits that could be readily ascribed to a troll.

Hey... I backed off and gave him a chance. But he continues to trade in the same old shit. I see no reason why I should cut Cool Hand any slack. I see him as an arrogant fucker who thinks he's better than everybody here. When it's pointed out to him that he's not, he refuses to acknowledge it.

So...bullshit back to you, Bub.

Indeed, I'll go out on a limb and state, probably without adequate foundation due to the population sample's being far too small, that Cool Hand might be regarded as a microcosm of the so-called "conservative dipshits" that doesn't fully understand the mindset of "anybody other than their own misguided kind."

Not only that, but when he finds he's in the minority, he runs to complain about the "tenor" of the conversations he's found here, particularly in regards to him personally. From my view, he's just reaped what he's sown. Now he wants to control how everybody responds...typical. Talk about feigned moral superiority...

vm & liv...I think you are mightily mislead. I think he's one very nasty piece of work.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

I'm very seriously considering changing the FF motto to "Where hate is a family value."


I'd say that was overstating it. I won't bother "hating" Cool Hand, because he doesn't justify that level of emotion. Instead, why don't you be truthful and change it to "Think what you want, but say only things that won't upset Cool Hand."

godfry

[Dingfod]

Well, I'll be hornswoggled. Who'd a-thunk it. I'm part of the liberal elite, the penultimate conservative, the antipodean redneck, the very inessence of average, the contrariety of normal, out of touch with the definitive indistinguished American. Woo-hoo, I've been trying to escape my middle-class trailertrash redneck existence and merely by association with those of liberal inclination in this here internets. I've been freed from the bonds of mediocrity. *ahhh* The fresh breath of freedom never smelled so sweet.

[viscousmemories]

I'm very seriously considering changing the FF motto to "Where hate is a family value."


I'd say that was overstating it. I won't bother "hating" Cool Hand, because he doesn't justify that level of emotion. Instead, why don't you be truthful and change it to "Think what you want, but say only things that won't upset Cool Hand."

godfry
You aren't the first, second or third person to accuse me of being an apologist for Cool Hand in the last 24 hours, and you probably won't be the last. Apparently what I have done to deserve this insult from you and the others is ask you to consider the possibility that you have misjudged him.

This is what I was referring to when I called Cool Hand the Great Satan that has invaded our tribe. I can think of no more rational explanation for your level of hostility toward someone you know so little about. I have followed the threads, I have read all your interactions with Cool Hand. I think you misread him early on and treated him like shit, and with the salient exception of one or two posts where I thought you might actually have connected a bit, I think you have continued to treat him like shit ever since.

If you choose to believe that I have blinders on so be it, but if you could find and cite a few examples of Cool Hand saying anything remotely as nasty to you or anyone as you have said to him I might be convinced. Preferred examples would be when he's not responding to shit already flung at him.

[Dingfod]

...you have no idea what my politics are.I think I have a pretty good idea. I don't think you and are all that far off of each other on the basic principles, only on what we put priorities on. You vote for economics over humanistic values and I the opposite. Different valuation of the same ideals. Big deal.


Say, that's a might high horse you rode in here on mister, does he eat much?

[livius drusus]

vm & liv...I think you are mightily mislead. I think he's one very nasty piece of work.

You are wrong. People have said that about you and they were wrong. I knew better in both cases.

I'd like to make an appeal, please. This is my thread. I started it as a random thoughts thread and it is now a take advantage of the lack of behavioral rules to behave as viciously as the spirit moves. I find that... disturbing.

I ask everyone posting here to simply stop dueling. If you have things to work out with each other, do it with dignity in private or do it with dignity in public and keep it within the confines of that one thread.

If you have no respect for someone else, fine, but these kinds of threads suck for anyone who stumbles on it and infect the forum with free range teeth baring. Have some respect for the wider quality of interactions here at least and make some token effort to restrain your ids.

[Goliath]

I'd like to apologize for taking my part in the derailment of this thread.

I'm sorry, liv.

[godfry n. glad]

vm & liv...I think you are mightily mislead. I think he's one very nasty piece of work.

You are wrong. People have said that about you and they were wrong. I knew better in both cases.

So... They said that. So be it. I still don't think I'm wrong, but I leave it that he has done nothing to make me think otherwise. Cool Hand continues to antagonise with his arrogance and superciliousness. You are encouraging that.

I'd like to make an appeal, please. This is my thread. I started it as a random thoughts thread and it is now a take advantage of the lack of behavioral rules to behave as viciously as the spirit moves. I find that... disturbing.

I ask everyone posting here to simply stop dueling. If you have things to work out with each other, do it with dignity in private or do it with dignity in public and keep it within the confines of that one thread.

If you have no respect for someone else, fine, but these kinds of threads suck for anyone who stumbles on it and infect the forum with free range teeth baring. Have some respect for the wider quality of interactions here at least and make some token effort to restrain your ids.

And... I submit that this is exactly the contradiction to the subtitle on this board.

If I can't say what I think, then this board is nothing other than just another moderated board. It's bullshit.

I wondered whether you really believed it...I guess I now know.

What a disappointment. :sadcheer:

godfry

[livius drusus]

So... They said that. So be it. I still don't think I'm wrong, but I leave it that he has done nothing to make me think otherwise.

As vm pointed out, you interacted positively several times so at least then it seems likely that you thought otherwise.

Cool Hand continues to antagonise with his arrogance and superciliousness.

Perhaps. He has his own communication flaws to attend to, as do we all.

You are encouraging that.

Perhaps. I have my own communication flaws to attend to, as do we all.

And... I submit that this is exactly the contradiction to the subtitle on this board.

I disagree.

If I can't say what I think, then this board is nothing other than just another moderated board. It's bullshit.

That's on its face false. I asked for consideration and respect. I did not command it nor enforce it via board software. The latter is a moderated board; my appeal is not.

I wondered whether you really believed it...I guess I now know.


Are you suggesting I am not allowed the same freedom of speech you are? The day you see me delete an insult from your post instead of countering it and/or asking you to rethink its wisdom in a post of my own or lock a thread that is nothing but cruelty instead of countering it and/or asking everyone to rethink it in a post of my own is the day you can cast aspersions on my committment to free speech on this board.


What a disappointment. :sadcheer:

Little beyond that, really. :(

[godfry n. glad]

So... They said that. So be it. I still don't think I'm wrong, but I leave it that he has done nothing to make me think otherwise.

As vm pointed out, you interacted positively several times so at least then it seems likely that you thought otherwise.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt initially. I thought some of his posts were thought provoking. Then, with his empty assertions on Bush v. Gore and his attempt to paint anyone who differed with his opinion as some kind of Carvillian demogogue, I got a real feeling for how this dipshit operates. When countered with evidence that his point is incorrect, he just refuses to answer. When he stuck his foot in his mouth with the "liberal elite" and "Middle America" bullshit comments, he tried to shrug them off as though they were unimportant and said, if I remember correctly, that we all knew what he was referring to....bullshit. I again backed off when you vetted him. When called on his omissions later, he responded by telling me not to hold my breath and then tells me to "Fuck off" as I'm an "obnoxious prick". So, I guess it's mutual.

What you have introduced into this forum is an arrogant jerk who will not acknowledge that he has made a mistake. I've watched Cool Hand treat at least three other posters like they were dirt.

To come right down to it, I'd rather communicate with an honest Objectivist libertarian than this asshole.

godfry

[livius drusus]

I could point to multiple posts which would indicate the opposite about Cool Hand, but he's not on trial here, and even if he were, he'd probably do that pro se thing. If you can find an honest Objectivist libertarian to communicate with, by all means invite him; hopefully he wouldn't find the P&L atmosphere as toxic as I fear he would.

Having said that, I'm going to go ahead and practice what I preach and stomp bumping a thread I find so ugly.

[godfry n. glad]

I could point to multiple posts which would indicate the opposite about Cool Hand, but he's not on trial here, and even if he were, he'd probably do that pro se thing. If you can find an honest Objectivist libertarian to communicate with, by all means invite him; hopefully he wouldn't find the P&L atmosphere as toxic as I fear he would.


I actively avoid speaking with known Objectivist libertarians. I'd like to do the same with Cool Hand, but then he'd feel more at home. I don't want that.

godfry