WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY?!

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Yeah? Then what was that screed that you unloaded on her in this thread?

I'll tell you....It's a big fuckin' guilt trip. (i.e., retaliation)

I'm pissed off at her. Guilt trip? I dunno, but it's not an unfair assessment.

How is it retaliation to point out to what I think is wrong about her position?

I'll bet she's just rarin' to listen to your political viewpoints and consider them reasonably. I mean, I always do that in circumstances where folks attempt to browbeat me and guilt trip me.

I don't really expect her to listen to my political viewpoints and consider them reasonably. She ignored several attempts to discuss the issues with her rationally before. Please go back and look. Most people tried to be patient and understanding, and to discuss the issues she brought up. I know I tried to, personally, and I put a great deal of time and effort into explaining the issues, providing other viewpoints, etc.

Her response was much dropping of pins and chirping of crickets.

I'm not trying to reason with her. Her response made me very mad.

I'm a little uncomfortable discussing her position here without her input, but I will stand by what I've said.

[Petra]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I don't really expect her to listen to my political viewpoints and consider them reasonably. She ignored several attempts to discuss the issues with her rationally before. Please go back and look. Most people tried to be patient and understanding, and to discuss the issues she brought up. I know I tried to, personally, and I put a great deal of time and effort into explaining the issues, providing other viewpoints, etc.

Her response was much dropping of pins and chirping of crickets.

I'm not trying to reason with her. Her response made me very mad.

I'm a little uncomfortable discussing her position here without her input, but I will stand by what I've said.

I have to agree.

And I believe that sometimes anger and disappointment should be expressed.

"Rage, rage against the dying of the light!"



Godfrey, if I angrily tell my flatmate that I think he's being a completely fucked fucking fucker if he constantly leaves me dirty dishes and never helps out at all even though we've discussed all the whys and wherefores of his responsibility in our shared house over and over again, am I guilt tripping him or expressing my (imo, justified) anger? Which principle is greater - a persons right to express anger; or a persons right to never have to feel guilty, and we should protect them from ever having to feel guilty, poor soul, even if it means repressing our own anger at that persons words or actions (or in this case, boastful inaction).

[Petra]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I'm a little uncomfortable discussing her position here without her input, but I will stand by what I've said.

Ditto.

[LadyShea]

I am going to derail the derailment to shine a little hope light about yesterday

And a record number of us voted to change course—more Americans voted against George Bush than any sitting president in history.

Tens of millions of us are disappointed today because we put so much of ourselves into this election. We donated money, we talked to friends, we knocked on doors. We invested ourselves in the political process.

That process does not end today. These are not short-term investments. We will only create lasting change if that sense of obligation and responsibility becomes a permanent part of our lives.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

This little message brought to us by Howard Dean http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

[Petra]

Thanks, Lady Shea.

As BB2 said in another thread - I, too, feel very sorry for the 50,000,000+ people who didn't vote for him, although it is heartening that there are so many of you to feel sad for (if that makes any sense...).

[Blake]

To come back to an old rail of the thread: Impeachment only requires a majority of the House, but a supermajority of the Senate to convict; Clinton was impeached by something like 214-212, party-line vote, and not convicted something like 55-45, again on a party-line vote.

Comes to exactly the same as what godfry said: Never going to happen. I think it is worth trying to "impeach" Bush's character in the public consciousness, to try to leave a lasting consensus that he's a phony and a grasping elitist, not a down-home morally just man. I'd like to see his character assassinated by the truth for all time.

It would be an ostensibly nonpartisan but in fact very effective Democratic organizing tactic just to reach out to, educate and discuss current affairs in enough depth with enough people that a majority of the electorate is participating in the same actual reality next time.

[Petra]

Well, if impeachment is out of the question, then I am definitely up for the pretzel idea.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by lunachick

Well, if impeachment is out of the question, then I am definitely up for the pretzel idea.

I wouldn't. Seriously. Threatening the life of the President is a crime.

We live in a country where you can be arrested for wearing a t-shirt that says "Preserve Our Civil Liberties" to a Bush rally. I wouldn't be at all surprised if sending Bush some pretzels would earn you a visit from some earnest men in dark suits.

[I was listening to the BBC yesterday, and a commentator was going on about how, outside the U.S., Bush is the most hated American President in living memory. Maybe our overseas friends should send Bush "congratulatory" bags of pretzels, but I honestly think it would be a bad idea for U.S. citizens to do so. And if that's not a sad commentary on the state that we've reached, I don't know what is.]

-- Michael

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I'm pissed off at her. Guilt trip? I dunno, but it's not an unfair assessment.

How is it retaliation to point out to what I think is wrong about her position?

I don't really expect her to listen to my political viewpoints and consider them reasonably. She ignored several attempts to discuss the issues with her rationally before. Please go back and look. Most people tried to be patient and understanding, and to discuss the issues she brought up. I know I tried to, personally, and I put a great deal of time and effort into explaining the issues, providing other viewpoints, etc.

Her response was much dropping of pins and chirping of crickets.

I'm not trying to reason with her. Her response made me very mad.

I'm a little uncomfortable discussing her position here without her input, but I will stand by what I've said.

As well you should. It's your opinion, but it's still retaliation, or an attempt thereof for not doing as you'd wished she'd done.

Listen... I'm not above throwing around emotionally charged terms. Everybody who knows me from other boards knows that. I've been almost as harsh with others about the very same topic. I've thought about that ever since. When I saw Bree's statement, I gave a wry acknowledgement of the irony. I don't have that high a respect for the general voting public. (I guess that's because I'm a "liberal elitist", huh?) That's the result of usually being on the losing end of most important electoral issues. Between the intelligence of the average voter and the skill of the political machine in manipulating those voters, the Repugnantcans have pulled the fat from the fire. It anybody's guess how much manipulation of the vote counting mechanisms and voter rolls was done by either side before or during this election, but I have yet to hear of anything as egregious as the Florida/Supreme Court debacle of 2000.

It is my considered opinion that your response to her snide remark did nothing to change her mind. If anything, your response probably rigidified her position. I'm just guessing, but if you'd drubbed me like that for expressing my opinion, I certainly wouldn't give your position more credence.

But that's just my opinion.

Just out of interest, does anyone have a handy list of those states which had "gay marriage" ballot measures?

How do those states match with the "battleground states" of the campaign?

Is there a congruence there?

It's also my opinion that grassroots is good. How many people here have been to their city council meeting? Or the local government, be it city, county, village, canton, parish, riding, district, borough or hiding?

Do you know how it works? Do you know how bloody boring it is? (Just a warning. I've sat through interminable meetings; believe me, it's a skill.)

That's the governing process. Then there's the electoral process to become a designated representative with an official vote.

Has anybody here even been a precinct committeeperson for their political party? It's a great place to start, and even the younger parties would be thrilled to have precinct contacts they could utilize for organizational stuff. Or as a campaign volunteer for a candidate you sorta know... Remember, though....this is all volunteer. And a precinct is more households than you think....and this is extrovert stuff.

So, with all that, lisa, your opinion is your opinion. Mine is mine. I'm just as guilty for tromping on you as you are on Bree as she is on us all. We're all entitled to it all...so far.

Can we stop bickering and do something constructive? Even if Bree thinks it's pointless?

godfry

[beyelzu]

Lisa,

I think your post to bree was out of line, I even agree with you but still over the fucking top.

[HelenM]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Just out of interest, does anyone have a handy list of those states which had "gay marriage" ballot measures?

How do those states match with the "battleground states" of the campaign?

Is there a congruence there?

I posted a list of them on page 1 of this thread. Ohio was one of them.

Helen

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by HelenM

I posted a list of them on page 1 of this thread. Ohio was one of them.

Helen

Thanks, Helen...

Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah all approved anti-same-sex marriage amendments by double-digit margins.

So... I think that list doesn't really mesh too well with the "battleground states" as I understood them. I understood the southern states to be Bushites Leaving Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon and Utah.

I'd say right off that Montana and Utah were pretty much Bush states.

That leaves Ohio and Michigan, along with Oregon, which ceased to be a battleground state early in the final campaign, and subsequently went Kerry.

Oregon, I know, in the last election was a very close finish, finally falling into the Gore column very late. It was worth campaigning here in hopes of moving enough voters to go vote and when doing it, vote for Bush.

The story I was told is that Rove did constituent testing to determine hot buttons...issues which would motivate them to go to the polls. Top of his short list: gay marriage. Evidently, the issue turns out lots of reaction voters, who, while filling out their ballot, do one for good ol' boy George Bush.

But only two states, and another possible, were "battleground states". One, however, was Ohio.

Any other spins on this rumor? Will this dawg run?

godfry