Excellent point. I’ve always felt there is a certain amount of cowardice involved in the whole demonizing process on mesage boards.
Re: Real People are Really Dying
Oh yeah, I really want to look smart by pointing out that people are dying. You’d think that anyone with half a brain and a TV (or Internet access) would know by now that 1) the war was a sham, started for bogus reasons, and b) several thousand innocent, repeat, INNOCENT people are dying, including our brave troops and innocent children. If Bush supporters don’t know that, then I guess I am smarter than they are because I’m keeping somewhat informed on what’s going on in the world.
No, by now, most Bush supporters are very aware of those facts but as Polerius indicated, their tax cuts and/or keeping equal rights from gays (or keeping unborn fetuses viable) are more important than actual living people being blown to bits for no reason whatsoever.
Well, at this point, Bush supporter = support of his bogus war that’s killed innocent people. Beyond that, Bush supporter = (pick one, or all) support his terrible record on environment/women’s rights/the economy/education/civil rights/health care (especially children’s health)/a thousand other things. Which one(s) should Bush supporters be commended for supporting?
Even those who support him because they think he’s “strong on terror” are woefully uninformed (or misinformed). (Cites upon request, as if there haven’t already been dozens of them practically every single day)
Why, beyond selfish tax cuts/abortion/gays/blind partisanship would anyone, should anyone, support this man? I haven’t heard a reason that makes sense yet. So to me, Bush supporters should be, at the very least, pitied and scorned for being uninformed and unthoughtful, and at most, demonized and scorned for being informed and supporting him anyway.
And you still have not answered my questions. What is your goal? Where is the return on investment? You seem to imply that you are concerned for the lives of innocents. Do you think that calling people stupid will aid this cause? Please, when you respond, don’t rant about what’s happening, answer what I’ve asked - how do you think it is going to get better by calling people stupid (or demonizing the opposition?) I’m really trying to understand the point - I’ve provided several possible reasons for this behavior, pick one or provide you own:
- Do you hope to change their minds this way?
- Do you just wish to inflame?
- Do you think that you will convince the fence-sitters, the undecided with this rhetoric?
- Or do you just want to sit around with others who think like you do and yell “Hooray, look how smart we are”?
- Provide a reason of your own.
Please, show me how much more intelligent you are than all the rest of the world and demonstrate that you understand my question.
But I’m not demonizing!
They really are demons! It’s obvious! Everyone knows it! Anyone who doesn’t think so - they’re a demon too!
What you think is just opinion. What I think is obviously true, and anyone who denies it has to be doing so for the worst motives I can imagine.
:shrugs:
It’s an election. The ones screaming are the ones who think they are losing. In a couple weeks, we will see if they are right.
Regards,
Shodan
No, too late for that. If they still support Bush wholeheartedly, they’re hopeless for this election.
No. There’s no point. They don’t care what they are.
No, too late for that. If they can’t come to their own conclusions based on the facts, then nothing I say will sway them.
Pointing out that people are dying is not dumb or smart, it’s just pointing out facts. Then again, people who believe in facts do tend to be smarter than people who believe in lies, when those lies are easily debunked. I’m not so smart. I’m a high-school dropout (I eventually did finish), but I may well be “smarter” than a college graduate who still believes that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, and supports killing innocent people.
- It makes me feel better. 2) If Bush supporters coupled with election fraud means that Bush gets 4 more years to screw up this country (and others), then Bush supporters should be held accountable. Just like 2000, we will never forget. Some may forgive, but I won’t.
The rest of the world feels the way I do, so they’re at least as intelligent as I am.
I didn’t start out the year 2000 a die-hard Democrat. I hated Clinton, though not for the reasons right-wingers hated him. I grew up in a staunchly Republican household and while I have always tended to vote Democrat, I’ve been known to vote for Republicans every now and then. The stolen election of 2000 changed me into a staunch Democrat. Bush’s policies and unnecessary war turned me into a die-hard Democrat. I think I’d slit my eyeballs before voting for a Republican ever again. Partisanship didn’t do that to me. The right-wing (spit) Republicans in power did that to me.
If Kerry wins, the right-wingers must never be allowed to gain power again. The only way to ensure that is to vote against Republicans, since that’s the party they’ve chosen to warp and destroy.
If Bush wins, that won’t be a problem because he’ll finish destroying the Republican party himself and it might take decades for them to gain power again after he and his minions are ousted.
If not for the damage he’s done and will do, I’d almost wish for Bush to win. But, I do have a conscience and I love my country and the world.
Earlier in this thread, you claimed that:
So which is it? Several thousand, or tens of thousands? Quite a difference in order of magnitude there. I would peg “several thousand” somewhere between 4,000 and 7,000, while “tens (plural) of thousands” means at least 20,000.
Or is it that you don’t let pesky things like facts get in the way of your outrage?
:dubious:
It seems to me that the heigtened tension is the result of the changing of politics over the last 30 years, least of which was the overturning of the Fairness Doctrine in 1986. We have lost the responsible journalism that we had, and have substituted a WWE style of politics that is NOT rigorous, yet is entertaining. I am finding that this new ‘style’ is extremely inflammatory. It is here to stay unless we return to the standards that we used to have (never perfect, but not as onesided as it is now). For example, global warming is pretty much accepted science, but we can have a debate about it like its not. The Theory of Evolution is accepted science, but we can debate that as well. Almost like the talk show host that really doesn’t want an answer, just a fight. We are swamped be irresponsible punditry that takes our eye off of the ball. Fights sell, not truth.
I happen to belive that a more progressive tax structure is the way to go and this is one of the reasons I’ll vote Kerry in Nov. I’ve got a number of reasons for this, but the fact is I have not the time, intelligence or patience to actually read all the necessary material to make a full judgement on the matter. My friend thinks the opposite and will vote Bush, but he doesn’t really understand all the issues involved either. So in the end, its easier for me to try and convince him that people trying to flatten the taxcode are evil rich people or their idiot stooges (after all, who could belive such a thing) and easier for him to try and convince me that people for a progressive tax are commie pinkos or their brainwashed hippie followers (after all, who could belive such a thing) then for me to sit down and go over the evidence with him.
It probably turns off more people then it convinces, leads to bad blood all around, gets us no closer to an honest answer to the original question of whats best for the country.
It does however convince some non-commited types one way or the other depending on whether they would rather risk being idiot stooges or brainwashed hippies, it saves us the time and effort of actually trying to figure out something as complex as the national economy. Finally it saves us the risk of actually being convinced we are wrong by allowing us to avoiding an honest assesment of the facts.
Why does a position on one, or any of this issues automatically equates to supporting Bush? Many of these issues were around well before Bush. Hell, there are even people who think gays getting married is awful, sick and demonizing. And even they don’t like Bush! If you automatically assume someone supports one canidate or another merely on the stance of an issue, you may be in for a surprise.
So if I understand correctly, you are fighting the ugliness and hatred of the right wing with ugliness and hatred, and you are doing this because it makes you feel better? And you feel that this makes you smarter than the “other side?”
I continue to remain truley and utterly stunned.
We have a country that is nearly split down the middle and many undecided votes. We have a board that describes itself as dedicated to fighting ignorance. A board that people come to in the hopes of gaining intellectual enlightenment. Never before in the history of the country has there been such a wonderful opportunity to get your point of view across. The internet is such a powerful tool and we have people squandering that tool by yelling “XXXXX is stupid”, “YYYY are morons!” And then they sit back and congratulate themselves on just how much smarter than others they are.
In March of 2003, the night before the war started, I sat on my back porch under a beautiful sky and thought “Wow, how peaceful.” And I then felt sad because I knew that the people in Iraq could not possibly be feeling the peace that I was. And more sad because my country was going to a war that I felt was unjust and my president had not convinced me we should go.
And now, with the election luming, I can’t decide how to vote, because “Anybody but Bush” isn’t good enough for me and pardon me, but I need a more intelligent argument than: Bush supporters are Idiots.
And I gotta tell you, no one here has done a good job differentiating themselves from the Bush camp. Because all I see is ugliness and hatred. You think that this will sway my vote? Worse, when this behavior is pointed out, the people doing it justifies it in their minds - hell, seem proud of it. It has been asked and asked, in the OP, by me and in the previous thread that I linked to: what is the purpose of this hatred? And we get
:Shakes head is genuine sadness and walks away:
It also makes you lose credibility. When you spew this stuff, it tends to make some people (people who might otherwise listen to you) blow you off.
But they won’t feel “held accountable” by someone who is ranting and raving and who has no credibility in their eyes (or in anyone else’s).
They won’t care if the people who rant and rave and carry on won’t forgive. They’ll consider the source and figure, “Well, who cares what they think? This person lost it a long time ago.”
Look—maybe you don’t care that you have very likely lost credibility with many people. Maybe you don’t* believe* that you’ve lost credibility (and by “you” I mean the general “you”—anyone who is over-the-top with demonizing and having tizzy-fits). I’m sure that you don’t care that the evil, horrible, murderous, Satan-worshiping people that you villify don’t think you have any credibility. After all, why should they give two figs what you think, or feel, or say? You have zero credibility. You lost it.
I know that many people have lost of a lot of credibility with me, due to the demonizing I’ve seen going on lately. Not that this should mean anything to you—I’m sure it doesn’t. But along with me losing respect, a lot of other people—including people whose respect (or attention) you desire—are tuning you out too. :shrug:
Or maybe you’re not letting the facts get in the way of your worldview.
According to the Pentagon, there have been 1246 coalition deaths and 8016 American casualties. (The Pentagon does not record non-American non-hostile casualties.)
According to this site, there have been between 13316 and 15397 Iraqi civilian casualties. NPR reported in 2003 that an estimated 10,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed. Yeah, I know. You don’t believe these numbers. And that’s fine. Because they’re Iraqis, and thus the enemy. A good Iraqi is a dead Iraqi, right?
You’re really not helping your cause here.
Robin
looks at thread title
cries
That was intended ironically. milroyj has a rep on this board for being unnecessarily and blindly partisan.
Robin
The ranks of the “unnecessarily and blindly partisan” have multiplied by a hundredfold lately on this board. Several are participating on this thread, and their names ain’t milroyj. (Not that this invalidates your intitial point, but I’m just sayin’ . . . )
Perhaps then we should add irony as another possible answer to the OPs question then.
Actually, I’m kinda with Equipose here. The Republicans have made what used to be a reasonably fair electoral contest into a knife fight. So I’m bringin’ my knife. Don’t like it, Pubbies? Drop your knives. Maybe I will drop mine.
Political demonization and mudslinging is nothing new, and neither was it started by either side. It started the first time an old chimp died and two younger males started slinging feces at each other until one ran away. The only difference between that and now is that we have bigger piles of feces on both sides.
This election season is especially viscious, however, because we “happen” to be at this thing called “war” and one side “happens” to want to change the Constitution in ways which disturb many on the other side. While I’m sure Bush’s plan was to ride into a second term on a wave of victory in Iraq, pretty much all of it has gone down the sh*tter and we’re left with this mess.
Demonization. You learn it on the playground as a child, and you only use bigger words when you grow up.
But a knife is useful in a knife fight. It’s less obvious that it is useful in fighting ignorance.
Yes, that’s exactly the website I read before posting. So somewhere between 10 1/3 and 10 1/2 now equals the plural “tens of thousands” of “innocent, repeat INNOCENT” Iraqi civilian casualties, as Equipoise claimed? I don’t think so. Wouldn’t “tens of thousands” be 20, 30, 50, or 70 thousand, rather than 10.3 or 10.5?
It appears that Equipoise’s standard for a legitimate cite in an argument is “something I read on the internet.” Look at post #22 for an example. Of her eight links, seven of them are to liberal activist websites, and only one is to a nominal news source, YahooNews.
Fine with me if you want to give her a pass on that, although I am not inclined to do so.