[QUOTE=RedFury]
IOW, why post a blatant lie that supports the man you don’t? I mean, you do know that most of us can read, right?
[/QUOTE]
It’s reality, that’s why. I can’t speak for John Mace, but I live in a town that is ridiculously right-wing; the figures he presents make me feel pretty good about things.
I’m being flippant. Sorry.
If I were reporting a poll of my own area, it would show 75% in favor, 10% undecided and 10% unavailable for comment.
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
While I agree that we (meaning Bush haters) need to keep from being confrontational with Bush apologists… what do we do instead?
Reasoned discourse doesn’t work. Impassioned pleas don’t work. Republicans paint everyone who disagrees with them as “soft on crime/terror/drugs”… and, unfortunately, it works on the average voter. The average American apparently doesn’'t respond to logical arguments- he votes out of fear.
By the way, I’ve always claimed that I don’t “hate” Bush, but rather that I fear him. Maybe I vote out of fear, as well.
[/QUOTE]
But not everyone who points out a flaw in a criticism of Bush is a Bush apologist. That’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. Those are the people who can still be influenced. Genuine Bush apologists will not be swayed. Forget about trying.
Now, as to how to influence the average voter, I honestly don’t know. But in a forum like this, I do think that speaking rationally with those who are willing to listen is the best approach to influencing opinions.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
WTF, John? I believe I’ve told on many an occassion that you’re one of the few – if not the only one – conservatives that I respect on this board. Clearly that need not amount to a hill of beans to you, but when you pull shit like the above post, I have to wonder if that respect is really earned.
IOW, why post a blatant lie that supports the man you don’t? I mean, you do know that most of us can read, right?
[/QUOTE]
If I was unclcear, I was talking about support for the invasion, not support for how Bush is handling the war now. Since I was responding to someone who was talking about support for the invasion (was it the right thing to do or not), I thought that would be clear. The % of Americans who this we were right in invading Iraq had dipped to a pretty low level earlier this summer, but has been steadily rising again in the last month.
And note that more people think Bush has a plan for handling the situation in Iraq than think the Dems do. So, while people don’t approve of how Bush is handling the war, it’s unclear that they think the Dems would do any better. Not too long ago, I think they did. Will that change again before the election? Maybe, but maybe not. Depends on what happens between now and then.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
IOW, why post a blatant lie that supports the man you don’t? I mean, you do know that most of us can read, right?
[/QUOTE]
I can read.
Let’s see. His link goes to here:
The question asked was:
“In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?”
The replies for 9/15-17/06 were:
Made a Mistake: 49%
Did Not Make a Mistake: 49%
Unsure : 2%
Now, I don’t know about you, but that poll seems to say that just about 50% of the people asked don’t think we made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq. Now, those people could be wrong, or delusional, or sociopaths, or neoconservatives, or dumb, or ill-informed, but they surely exist. Or the poll could be flawed, it could be biased, it could not represent opinion accurately.
But how does citing that poll make John’s statement a blatant bald-faced lie that anyone who was able to read could recognize as a blatant bald-faced lie?
In other words, John might have been lying, or trying to decieve us, but if so it would take more than a cursory glance to show that he was lying. At least for me. Is your argument that the answers to the statement: “In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?” are not relevant?
Explain the blatant lie to me, because it was too subtle for me.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
…And note that more people think Bush has a plan for handling the situation in Iraq than think the Dems do. So, while people don’t approve of how Bush is handling the war, it’s unclear that they think the Dems would do any better. Not too long ago, I think they did. Will that change again before the election? Maybe, but maybe not. Depends on what happens between now and then.
[/QUOTE]
I think this is the chief problem the Democrats will face. Whoever runs will need to have a relatively clear plan for dealing with Iraq if they hope to win.
Frankly, looking to the Dems to undo the damage Bush has caused feels like I’m looking to Jerry Lewis for a daring rescue. Even if he pulls it off, I’m not going to like it much. Parliamentary governments look better and better all the time.
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
While I agree that we (meaning Bush haters) need to keep from being confrontational with Bush apologists… what do we do instead?
[/QUOTE]
Am I a Bush apologist? That is, will I reflexively support Bush no matter what he does, and attack whatever he attacks? And if Bush changes his mind tomorrow, I’ll change my mind as soon as I get the news?
If you think that anyone who disagrees with you is a Bush apologist, then you’re an example of the problem.
And one more time. If I were a Bush apologist, surely you can predict who I voted for in the 2004 election. Hint: I didn’t throw my vote away on some loopy Libertarian protest vote.
[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
And I’m supposed to refrain from calling them names, because that would be bad.
[/QUOTE]
Not because it’s “bad”, but because it’s ineffective for actual change.
I personally think both sides are ringed with asshats, and that we’re witnessing the decline of the country.
I cannot fathom any circumstances under which the two sides will become united in cause, nor anyone that could appeal to both in order to accomplish such a task.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
You’ve talked yourself into a world-view where anyone who disagrees with you cannot be doing so in good faith, but must be evil.
[/QUOTE]
Well, lethally negligent, then? I mean, seriously, what’s there left to argue about in regards to the Iraq war? Everything, and I mean everything Bush and Co. has asserted about Iraq to make the case for this terribly bloody war (WMDs and al Qaeda ties) has been falsified. (And don’t feed me more bullshit about Saddam’s other violations of UN mandates which were never a justification for invading a sovereign state, nor for the need to protect the United States from an imminent threat). This administration is directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, and nothing they said to justify this attrocity was correct. Nothing. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. The point has been hammered home again and again with mounting evidence since 2004, but there already was plenty of evidence even then.
So fine, he’s guilty, grossly incompetent, or both. I really don’t think there’s anything left to the responsible and thinking adult to consider. And I really wish it was absolutist to frame the debate that way, but unfortunately it isn’t. It’s the correct way, because that’s what the facts were telling us.
And, for what it’s worth, I don’t consider “evil” to be a terribly useful concept.
Alright, fair enough, John. My confusion seems to stem from the fact that the VERY FIRST question in your link asks:
[QUOTE=ABC]
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?”
[/quote]
Lemur,
Explained above.
And the latest response is:
9/5-7/06:
Approve-41% Disapprove-57% Unsure-2%
Thus your post appeared to be, at the very least, nonsensical.
41 57 2
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Yep. Are you game?
[/QUOTE]
I like you. You’re the honestest bookie I know. 
Odds, please? Also, terms; will this be negated upon delivery of a terrorist plot, like what the FBI considers a possible October Surprise?
Are you joking?
If I’m attacked by a mugger, does it make sense to think I can hit back while lamenting that I’m being hit?
If I’m being sued, does it make sense to think I can defend myself in court while lamenting that I’m being sued?
Civility is a wonderful thing. But it has a time and a place, and most importantly civility by itself is not the same as sensibility. If I get hit in the head with flying shit, over and over again, perhaps it would be civil to say “What ho, please stop that, cheeky devil”. But that is not the sensible response.
Screwed coding. One more try:
Alright, fair enough, John. My confusion seems to stem from the fact that the VERY FIRST question in your link asks:
[QUOTE=ABC]
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?”
[/quote]
And the latest response is:
9/5-7/06:
Approve-41% Disapprove-57% Unsure-2%
Lemur,
Explained above.
Screwed coding above. One more try:
Alright, fair enough, John. My confusion seems to stem from the fact that the VERY FIRST question in your link asks:
[QUOTE=ABC]
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?”
[/quote]
And the latest response is:
9/5-7/06:
Approve-41% Disapprove-57% Unsure-2%
Lemur,
Explained above.
[QUOTE=Orbifold]
Are you joking?
Not if you’re gleefully whaling away at him, no.
Sure, but you can do so without resorting to crap tactics – especially if you want to shake your head ruefully about how crappy your opponent’s tactics are. I’m fully aware of the snakey shit that goes on it a courtroom; just don’t tell me how much you hate doing it as you do it. That’s hypocrisy, pure and simple.
The sensible response would be to remove yourself from the discourse until it improves or to start another discourse that does not involve airborne poop. Responding in kind is never your only option in dialog.
You want to defend your right to be offensive in response to perceived offensiveness, go right ahead – I won’t even argue with it. But I don’t listen to people who are screaming at me, simple as that. I don’t really care why you’re screaming, or if you personally think your screaming is justified – you screaming = me not listening.
And it seems to me that losing your audience would be a good reason to not respond in kind, that’s all.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Am I a Bush apologist? That is, will I reflexively support Bush no matter what he does, and attack whatever he attacks? And if Bush changes his mind tomorrow, I’ll change my mind as soon as I get the news?
If you think that anyone who disagrees with you is a Bush apologist, then you’re an example of the problem.
And one more time. If I were a Bush apologist, surely you can predict who I voted for in the 2004 election. Hint: I didn’t throw my vote away on some loopy Libertarian protest vote.
[/QUOTE]
Nice strawman ya got there. Did you have to pay extra for the stick up its butt, or is that stock?
Bush apologists DO exist. There are tons of people in this country who will always vote Republican, no matter what, and who will decry anyone who dares to question Republican rule. THEY are an example of the problem, not the people who argue with them. I never said you were one… I’m not even sure how you got that idea. I don’t even know who you are, let alone who you voted for.
For exactly the same reason, people who will only ever vote Democrat are also the problem. “Party before Country” is a stupid way to run a democracy.
But that’s not true!
The very first question asked is:
“In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?”
That question is answered 49/49/2.
Did you think you could get away with such blatant lie?
:rolleyes:
Or maybe there’s some other explanation, like RedFury looking at a different website, or something, who knows. But since he’s an apologist (of what, who knows) I’m gonna stick with the blatant liar explanation. Nope, there’s no possible way he could have made such a statement in good fath. Had to be a blatant lie. No way it could be a mistake. And he thought we were dumb enough not to check!
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
…For exactly the same reason, people who will only ever vote Democrat are also the problem. “Party before Country” is a stupid way to run a democracy.
[/QUOTE]
Never had the opportunity to vote for a Republican who didn’t make me want to hurl. I assure you that should I ever have an opportunity to support a Republican whose policies were more progressive than his Democrat opponent, I wouldn’t hesitate for an instant.
First had the opportunity to vote for Nixon, sooner vote for a petri dish of e. coli. Thirty seven years and counting, still waiting for that opportunity to earn my non-partisan merit badge. Ah, well.
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
people who will only ever vote Democrat are also the problem.
[/QUOTE]
I see. Because my babysitter’s viewpoint never strays from [Party of Choice] she’s automatically the enemy.
Let me express this, just this once: there are good people who live how they live and believe how they believe, never once swaying because they had no time to learn to believe any differently. These are the people I know. The rest of us have disposable time to fight, to discuss, to post shit on a messageboard.
Consider yourself lucky that there are people willing to take up your slack.
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
Nice strawman ya got there. Did you have to pay extra for the stick up its butt, or is that stock?
Bush apologists DO exist. There are tons of people in this country who will always vote Republican, no matter what, and who will decry anyone who dares to question Republican rule. THEY are an example of the problem, not the people who argue with them. I never said you were one… I’m not even sure how you got that idea. I don’t even know who you are, let alone who you voted for.
For exactly the same reason, people who will only ever vote Democrat are also the problem. “Party before Country” is a stupid way to run a democracy.
[/QUOTE]
Of course there are Bush apologists. Ann Coulter. Rush Limbaugh. Hugh Hewitt. Tony Snow. And so on. And there are Bush apologists on our sacred message board.
And to say that there’s no way to argue with Bush apologists may be true but it’s irrelevant because most of the time you’re not dealing with a Bush apologist.
You said originally:
Are you talking about Republicans here? Or Bush apologists? Or Bush voters? Or people who support the war? Or people who don’t pay attention to politics? How many “Bush apologists” do you really think there are out there, leaving aside people paid a salary to apologize for Bush, like Rush and Ann and Tony.
Reasoned discourse DOES work. Impassioned pleas may or may not work, but they’re surely less likely to work than reasoned discourse.
And if you honestly feel that the people are too stupid to make mostly rational decisions most of the time, then the authoritarians are right and democracy is a sham.
But the authoritarians are not right, and democracy is not a sham. And despair over democracy is exactly the wrong thing to do. How many average people do you think you’re going to convince when you complain that average people are too stupid to agree with you? That’s an authoritarian impulse. If the average person is too ignorant to suit you, surely the thing to do is to educate them rather than spit on them.
[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
I see. Because my babysitter’s viewpoint never strays from [Party of Choice] she’s automatically the enemy.
[/QUOTE]
Only if she’s unwilling to vote for [Other Party], simply because they’re not [Party of Choice], is she “the enemy”. Or do you disagree?