Is anyone else scared of what will happen if Kerry is elected?

[Dingfod]

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

I meant exactly what I said--get over it. It's not productive for anyone to continue to dwell on the fiasco of the pregnant, dimpled, and hanging chads in Florida four years ago.

Well, this is where we'll just have to disagree, because this sounds to me like "Pay no attention to the man behind the screen."

It seems to me that there are many things about this administration that this administration would just as soon that the American voting public NOT remember. Starting with their theft of the presidency via a judicial coup.

I happen to think that the actions of the Supreme Court were in violation of the Constitutional provisions for election of a president. It is the House of Representatives perogative, not the Supreme Court's. My reading of the Constitution obviously varies from yours.

"Your claim that you see a trend here with regard to what you think my views are is misguided. I don't think you understand my political views at all. I'm hardly a right winger. On the other hand, I try to maintain a comfortable distance from the absurd left-wing demogoguery that has dominated the Kerry campaign. For what it's worth, I don't buy much of Bush's rhetoric either. That doesn't mean by default I believe what the Democrats keep saying about him, however."

Your bolded statement is "demonising" in my view. I'll believe what you have to say about your personal political beliefs when I see evidence of it. To date, all I have seen from you is what I consider to be ultraconservative apologetics.

You have accused me of being slanderous, glib, and condescending. Further, you suggested that I "don't give a shit about how our country is run," simply because I don't express outrage at the Supreme Court's per curiam decision in Bush v. Gore.

No, because you dismissed it as unimportant.

Can we just bury the hatchet? ... I tried to tell you I'll refrain from addressing you so as not to offend or insult you directly, but you aren't letting it rest. What do you suggest I do, apart from not participating in political discussions at FF?

Cool Hand

For one, I suggest you respond to my response in the other thread. The one liv has asked you to respond to. As I see it, your claims of trying to mollify me are merely a sham to walk away without responding.

Secondly, throwing around the terms "absurd left-wing demogoguery" is demonising. And I bet you know that, too. I perceive you as accusing others of doing just as you do, and then condemning them for it.

As for burying the hatchet...sure...feel free, as long as it's in Ashcroft's forehead.

godfry

[Cool Hand]

godfrey,

Thanks for responding. You did not accept or acknowledge my apology to you for offending you. I will assume that it was an oversight on your part.

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I'll believe what you have to say about your personal political beliefs when I see evidence of it. To date, all I have seen from you is what I consider to be ultraconservative apologetics.

All right. You believe me to be insincere. If your mind is made up, then there is simply nothing more I can say to change your belief. From some of your other posts I've read, I don't think you are closed-minded. Perhaps your continued sense of having been slighted or insulted is keeping you from entertaining the possiblity that I might actually be candid.

If you really do want to see evidence that I am not the ultraconservative you believe me to be, you could use the "find all posts by this user" function. If you really wanted to, you could find posts I've made that are critical of right-wing and other conversative nonsense. I don't know how to link to another post, so I can't show you one here. There is a thread in Politics and Law about Constitutional something or other that contains my analysis that is very critical of some Christian right-wing nonsense in Congress. It's not the only instance of my criticizing the right.

No, because you dismissed it as unimportant.

That is not a reasonable inference from any of my remarks. I didn't dismiss it as unimportant. I believe it's irrelevant today. That's not the same. It's over and done. We can't go back and replay the fourth down a week after the ballgame is over.

For one, I suggest you respond to my response in the other thread. The one liv has asked you to respond to. As I see it, your claims of trying to mollify me are merely a sham to walk away without responding.

I try to be gracious and to tell you I have no ill will towards you, and that I wish to put our unfortunate differences behind us. I offer my apology for offending you. You respond with what is essentially blackmail--answer my litany of questions or I'll continue to hold a grudge. That's not a step towards reconciliation. It sounds more like trying to bully me into being your friend.

Can you accept the possibility that I'm actually sincere? If not, then there is no point in either of us making any effort to be friendly. You will continue to suspect my motives, and I will continue to believe that you see malevolent intent where there is none.

What possible ulterior motive could I have in continuing to respond to you? If I wanted to get under your skin, there are better ways to do it than making a false attempt at reconciliation.

Secondly, throwing around the terms "absurd left-wing demogoguery" is demonising. And I bet you know that, too. I perceive you as accusing others of doing just as you do, and then condemning them for it.

Did you overlook that I also used the term "absurd right-wing demogoguery?" Absurb means silly. It doesn't mean demon-like. I'm not trying to dehumanize anyone. People of all stripes think, say, write, and believe silly things. They're still people. Demogoguery is playing to people's emotions. Again, it's not demonizing.

As for burying the hatchet...sure...feel free, as long as it's in Ashcroft's forehead.

godfrey, that's not a very gracious response. This has nothing to do with Ashcroft (whom I think is a terrible Attorney General and a menace to civil liberties, BTW). This has to do with my offer to reconcile with you. If you aren't interested, fine, just say so. If you are, you could make a little effort here.

I'm trying to extend my hand to you to shake on it. It's up to you to take it or not.

Cool Hand

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

godfrey,

Thanks for responding. You did not accept or acknowledge my apology to you for offending you. I will assume that it was an oversight on your part.

All right. You believe me to be insincere. If your mind is made up, then there is simply nothing more I can say to change your belief. From some of your other posts I've read, I don't think you are closed-minded. Perhaps your continued sense of having been slighted or insulted is keeping you from entertaining the possiblity that I might actually be candid.

If you really do want to see evidence that I am not the ultraconservative you believe me to be, you could use the "find all posts by this user" function. If you really wanted to, you could find posts I've made that are critical of right-wing and other conversative nonsense. I don't know how to link to another post, so I can't show you one here. There is a thread in Politics and Law about Constitutional something or other that contains my analysis that is very critical of some Christian right-wing nonsense in Congress. It's not the only instance of my criticizing the right.

That is not a reasonable inference from any of my remarks. I didn't dismiss it as unimportant. I believe it's irrelevant today. That's not the same. It's over and done. We can't go back and replay the fourth down a week after the ballgame is over.

You see... This is what I keep coming back to. I think it highly relevant and your analogy is what is irrelevant. The "ballgame" is not over. There is no ballgame, but there is an egregious impugning of integrity the Supreme Court by five of the nine justices and this continues without official censure or rebuke of any kind. And, the result is that we have an illegitmate government. Congress should have acted, but didn't...because the benefactor is a partisan of the majority of the house responsible for impeachment.

Despite what seems to be your overwhelming desire to sweep this out from view with what is essentially derision, I, and others, still think it cogent to events today. In my eyes, it is a clear indication of the perfidity of this administration and the lengths they will go to to secure power.

I try to be gracious and to tell you I have no ill will towards you, and that I wish to put our unfortunate differences behind us. I offer my apology for offending you. You respond with what is essentially blackmail--answer my litany of questions or I'll continue to hold a grudge. That's not a step towards reconciliation. It sounds more like trying to bully me into being your friend.

Frankly, at this point, I don't care if you're my "friend" or not. I'm not trying to blackmail you for anything. I just want you to answer the question I posed and liv repeated. That's one question.

Why do you still persist in dodging it?

Can you accept the possibility that I'm actually sincere?

Possible - yes. Probable - I have my doubts.

If not, then there is no point in either of us making any effort to be friendly. You will continue to suspect my motives, and I will continue to believe that you see malevolent intent where there is none.

What possible ulterior motive could I have in continuing to respond to you? If I wanted to get under your skin, there are better ways to do it than making a false attempt at reconciliation.

Yeah, sure, and it probably wouldn't be too hard. Yet, it probably would destroy the carefully developed persona of being a cool, calm, collected, well-prepared and level-headed proponent of rational disputation. I doubt I'm worth that kind of trouble.

Did you overlook that I also used the term "absurd right-wing demogoguery?" Absurb means silly. It doesn't mean demon-like. I'm not trying to dehumanize anyone. People of all stripes think, say, write, and believe silly things. They're still people. Demogoguery is playing to people's emotions. Again, it's not demonizing.

Just because you demonize two differing points of view doesn't mean you don't demonize.

It seems you and I have variant definitions of what is and is not "demonizing". From my perspective, you engage it in as much as those you accuse. I engage in it as well....but I don't deny it like you seem to want to.

godfrey, that's not a very gracious response. This has nothing to do with Ashcroft (whom I think is a terrible Attorney General and a menace to civil liberties, BTW). This has to do with my offer to reconcile with you. If you aren't interested, fine, just say so. If you are, you could make a little effort here.

I'm trying to extend my hand to you to shake on it. It's up to you to take it or not.

Cool Hand

The Ashcroft comment was meant to be bitter humor. And a more proper use of the metaphorical weapon..."burying" it in a metaphorically better locale. Graciousness has nothing to do with it.

You are right. I still percieve you as insincere. I don't trust you. As such, I will withhold my acceptance of your apologies for the time being....until such time that I have sufficient evidence to do so.

godfry

[Cool Hand]

OK, godfrey. I'll take that as a "No."

Cool Hand

[godfry n. glad]

For what it's worth, "Not now," is very different from "no".

Do as you like. So far, it's still a free country. Sorta.

godfry