When supporters for one side start calling for the murder of the candidate of the other, their cheese done officially slid off their cracker.
We ARE talking about objective facts. Like, “Was Saddam behind 9-11 ?”, “Is evolution true ?”, “What are the Republican Party’s official positions ?”, “Did they ever find WMDs ?”, “Have we tortured people ?”; all objective facts that right wingers tend to ignore or be wrong about. Not everything is a matter of opinion.
Yes.
Just go to any news website (e.g. abcnews.com) and read the comments in any of the political articles. The comments from the right-wing nutjobs are truly jaw-droppingly stupid and sound like the repetitive drone of people who are brainwashed.
Technically they are below MEDIAN intelligence.
I was reading an article this morning and I was surprised how terrified some of these right wing types are. They act like he’s some sort of Islamic Manchurian Candidate or something.
:eek:
He’s Chinese too?!
First they try to poison our kids with lead toys and now they’re trying to take over our gummint. :mad:
The Antichrist is already here and they haven’t been raptured? No wonder they’re pissed!
What he said.
To get back to the OP, I was wondering this myself. Specifically, consider Michelle Malkin’s response to the Palin/Biden debate. The consensus from most commentators was that Palin did, at best, an adequate job, aided by the very low expectations that she was expected to meet. But Malkin swooned over the results, considering it a clear, out of the park homer for Palin. And consider Lowry’s famous “little starbursts” comment.
Granted, no one’s really objective about the debates, but these comments are so far from the consensus analyses that one has to wonder just what kind of mental filter the debate was watched through. No rational commentator could seriously believe that Palin soundly defeated Biden – her grasp of issues was limited, she steamrollered right over questions she didn’t know the answers to, and her response to the “Vice Presidential powers” question revealed a complete inability to grasp the nuance of the questions.
So…are the commentators simply to involved to be dispassionate, seeing everything through a rose-colored fog? Or are they deeply cynical PR flaks, knowing that what they’re writing is false, but hoping that some of it sticks regardless? This last view is exemplified in this article by Helen Rittelmeyer in which she urges party loyalty over truth and takes another columnist to task for daring to suggest that Palin be replaced.
Bush, their hero just got on TV saying all is well. While he was assuring us ,the market dropped about 200 points. He can talk, but nobody believes or trusts him anymore. The financial reality is he has no trust and he can not fix what he brought us. He can not even rally his peeps.
…I’ve been out of town with my boss, and we’ve gone to check into a hotel, found that it doesn’t have ‘Fox News’ on their cable/satellite subscription, and had to find another hotel.
Yes, some people are that wrapped in their own particular world views. Daily reinforcement needed.
-Joe
Bush stopped mattering a while ago. Even he realizes it now.
-Joe
Technically, if intelligence follows a bell curve (or any symmetric pdf for that matter), the mean and the median are the same
Maybe.
I think all this denotes a stark sharpening of a divide in America. I think the Social Conservative co-opting of the government in many cases and their notable, “us and everyone not-us” stance built the base for this rancor. While there were certainly people left and right in the past there was (I feel) a sense of more willingness for a give-and-take. Social conservatives toppled that. It was their way or the highway…there was no middle ground to be had.
This in many respects is anathema to many liberals and liberals were slow to respond not really believing the social conservatives could gain as much ground as they have and never show a willingness to let up. Now liberals are as recalcitrant as their conservative counterparts and this is what we get. The two sides no longer have respect for each other and just downright hate each other now.
Also, I think you are underestimating just how vile many liberals have found the current administration to be. I think the OP is basically asking how anyone can be an apologist for the current administration and a continuation of what Bush has wrought. I do know there are numerous old-school conservatives (not social conservatives) who are just as appalled by Bush and what has happened as any liberal. In the face of the obvious…a bogus war, stomping of our constitutional rights, croneyism run amok, epic economic failures and so on how can anyone possibly be ok with this? Because he opposes abortions and gay marriages the rest can be overlooked?
It is this apparent unwillingness to face the patently obvious that I think gets people worked up…particularly here where presumably a good argument is given an honest hearing. I have seen conservative posters provided with evidence, and sound and not disputed evidence at that, still continue in their now provable wrong headed beliefs.
On the SDMB of all places that seems amazing. It is just worse out in the rest of the world. The 800 pound gorilla just isn’t in the room with you…it is sitting in conservatives’ lap yet they (general conservatives “they”) amazingly seem able to ignore it.
Listening to the McCain/Palin rallies from the last few days, the supporters are starting to sound rabid. Like they’re getting lathered up for a physical fight. Watching/hearing this is fascinating because to me it’s evidence of the nuttiness of some extreme-thinking people who go through life under the radar, but who freak the F out when they’re pushed to the limit.
This article from Jonathan Martin captures much of my original point, as GOP rallies this past week seem to have devolved into something akin to lynch mobs. It’s more than disagreement; it’s unhinged hatred, the kind of thing I think more mainstream concervatives are actually worried about:
Fox News is of course an easy target. Jon Stewart had a hilarious bit last night where he noted–with all the economic news swirling about–Fox News was more interested in talking about Obama’s supposed relationships with William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan (!?!); country singer Aaron Tippin’s song “Drill Here, Drill Now”; the quality of the Sarah Palin photo on the cover of Newsweek and elsewhere; the problems the author of an anti-Obama book had in Kenya; and a rather stunning reinterpretation of their own debate focus group’s results (right at the end; don’t miss it).
Why does it matter? First let’s be clear: Rush Limbaugh is the highest-rated syndicated talk-show on radio, airing on nearly 600 stations and reaching an audience of nearly 20 million a week. Bill O’Reilly has the highest-rated show in cable news and reaches an average of 2.5 million viewers a night. Fox News is the top-rated cable news channel in every daypart. Make no mistake: This isn’t just a small fringe akin to the diehards on the left; numbers like this imply a significant chunk of the right are inside the bubble.
Second, when a sizeable chunk of your support in caught in such a solipsistic bubble, their opinion and interests–no matter how irrational–become harder to ignore, and so you’re forced into making bad decisions. The choice of Sarah Palin as VP is a great example; while I may support Obama over McCain, I could understand someone arguing McCain would be a better president (even if I don’t agree). But I just don’t see, given her performance since the nomination, how anyone could reasonably argue she was the best (or even a good) choice for McCain’s running mate. This isn’t a matter of disagreeing with her ideals/priorities, it’s a basic question of quality for the job; I could immediately name a half-dozen Republicans who, objectively, would have been a better choice both politically and competency-wise (Olympia Snowe, Mitt Romney, Charlie Crist, Roy Blunt, Sam Brownback, Frank Keating). BTW, wouldn’t “Mitt Romney” have been a good answer for McCain to give at the last debate when asked “who would make a good Treasury Secretary in your administration?” Again, McCain didn’t think of it because, well, the base doesn’t like Romney; his pro-choice past is apparently more important to them than what even I would admit is his expertise would be in developing a solution to the current economic crisis. Pure bubble-think.
Today I had my first person explain to me that Obama was the Anti-Christ. At least I hope she is losing touch with reality and it isn’t me.
We’ve been told repeatedly, here at the SDMB, that conservatives think liberals have bad ideas, while liberals think conservatives are evil.
Therefore, it is not possible that conservatives are frothing with anger about the inherent evils of the Democratic candidate.
My supervisor from my recently former IT job also liked to explain that to the employees :mad:.
Thank goodness the people in the school I work do understand about evidence and almost all (with no need to convincing from my part) jumped from going to vote for McCain to voting for Obama now, the interesting bit to notice is that this is happening in Arizona, the state McCain is from.
Since when do the conservatives think that the left just has bad ideas ?
In my experience it’s been the exact opposite; the majority of the left thinks the right is well meaning but wrong ( and are Pollyannas for thinking so, IMHO ), while the Right think the Left is composed of monsters. They think the left is composed of atheistic Communist Jewish gay Satanic child molesting race-mongrel evilutionists.
They…were demanding evidence that Obama was not the anti-Christ?