Stoidela did say he didn’t finish reading the thread, didn’t he?
Well, that last reply was an hour and a half ago. I guess what we’re getting is just her stunned silence.
Gad- Fine. I get the Pit, GD, GQ, and IMHO. You get Comments on Cecil’s columns, Comments on Staff Reports, ATMB, and MPSIMS.
Or would you like a recount?
I too, am a big girl. 
And having glanced at the end of the thread just now (without having thoroughly read the rest of it earlier), I of course scanned the other two thirds and I have to say… sigh…
I guess that’s why I spoke only a third of the way through.
It’s awfully amusing, however, to see that I somehow become a topic even when I’m not around.
I have to admit, even I grow fatigued. It is apparant that we will all have several years to observe the man who will be occupying the White House. As a result, we will have tons of opportunity to dissect his character (or, uh, lack of same), his personality, and his intelligence (what there is of it). I’m tired already.
God, I really cannot stand that twit, and I really don’t get why it is alright with so many of his supporters that they did not in fact vote for him, his ideas, his abilities - they voted for his ability to be “handled” by others. That’s what you want in a president?!? EEeeewwwwww…
stoid
Heeyyyy, poopypants! Not so fast! If you think you fast-talkin’ city slickers can just blow off obscure but rightful entities like Euty, and UncaBeer, and Chronos, and Slythe and–whassis name; Swiss, nice guy–well, whatever; oh, and a Dutch guy, probably off doing suave Continental shit again…where was I?
Oh, yeah. Lyynnnnn!, smiteth those who would bogart fora! May their offspring feed locusts and their ballots be dimpled! (Secret Illuminati stuff goin’ on; look aside.)
Awaiting lightning (in a lawnchair, w/ beer & popcorn),
Veb
Dammit! Ceeeeeecil!! Veb took my smart-ass answer!
(Uh oh…now I’ve done it.)
BOO Hiss!!! on the lot of ya.
Not to worry, kid. Actually, I think I messed that invocation thingy up anyway. Pop the cooler and pull out a cool one–and toss one over, willya? If it works, we got us a fireworks display. If it doesn’t, well…wouldn’t have a large bag of Cheetos and some jerky handy, would ya? Could be a lot of fun…
Oh, Cecil Above, David B. was included and I forgot him in the curse!
Hmmm, wonder if we can toast Cheetos in the conflagration?
Veb
Stoidela, sorry about the gender confusion there.
If I may make a suggestion. Dealing with the partisian rantings of above mentioned posters (and others not mentioned) takes patience and a very low boiling point. When you see a post that makes you angry, write out your response, but don’t hit the submit reply button. Get up from your computer and get a Coke or something. Drink it slowly. Then come back, delete the post you made in anger, and type out a new one.
I should have known to expect a more informed reply here on SDMB :)-- yes, Bush is 54, Cheney 59. And yet, according to one correspondent, the most common answer among GOP convention delegates was about 20 years. There seems to be a widespread perception of a generation gap between the two, although whether this is due to Cheney’s association with Bush Sr., Bush Jr.'s relatively youthful looks compared to Cheney’s distinctly unhealthy pallor, or the manner in which they articulate their ideas, I don’t know.
jr8
To add a couple comments: I understand your contention, Biggirl, that a candidate’s intelligence is an issue. However, as CC relates, “The point [This American Life’s] host made was this: we ALL, journalists included, have “story lines,” of life’s events in our heads. Sometimes, these are commonly held perceptions. And when events occur that somehow, even remotely, match this story line, the events get reported in that context.”
If the discussion of Bush’s intelligence (and Gore’s “exaggerations”) had been confined to the context of real issues, I’d have much less of a problem with it. As it is, it’s become, not just an issue, but the issue, obscuring others. The prominence of the “stupidity factor” (to coin a phrase), IMO, has less to do with its importance than with it’s simplicity. (Bush dumb. End of argument.)
And…that leads to a second comment, which I’m reminded of by Stoidela’s arrival. It bothers me to see Bush’s intelligence brought up in Bush/Gore arguments. It bothers me not because I’m skeptical of Bush’s supposed intellectual failings, and not because I feel the characterization is unfair, but because I feel Bush will be a poor President.
That probably doesn’t make any sense, right? Let me explain: Bush has a lot of bad ideas. If I argue, say, that Bush’s environmental policies are poor, then his supporters have a complex, multi-faceted (and inherently untenable, of course) position to explain. On the other hand, if I argue that Bush’s environmental policies are poor and he is a dummy, then his supporters have a simple position to explain: Bush is not a dummy; ergo, his environmental policies are OK.
So the focus on intelligence not only lowers the calibre of the discussion, but it also gives Republicans a free pass by not forcing them to attempt to explain poor policies, but rather allowing them to simply say “Appearances are deceiving; Bush has competent advisors; small policy decisions can be delegated; it doesn’t matter; next question.”
[sub] And speaking of “lowering the calibre of the discussion,” it figures this thread goes downhill once moderators start posting. Teach me to ask for a thread to be moved. Grumble, grumble.[/sub]
He’s a lot dumber than his father.
Never fear, Biggirl, I never get angry. I have been known to get extraordinarily frustrated, but never, ever angry. At least, not at the posts or posters around here. Real life is a different thing altogether.
No, the times I need to get up, walk away, and come back later to try again are the times when I am, purely for the entertainment value, in danger of sinking to the level of many around here and getting personal. I have written some really devastating personal shots against some people around here, laughed my ass off, then deleted them. Thems the rules and all, I gotta stick by em. It hurts sometimes, though… some of my best work has been for me and Pump Action Gerbil eyes’ only.
Anyway, I’ve decided that Zut is my new hero. Now I have three, all for different reasons:
Spiritus Mundi, who makes me wanna be a better poster (and whom I’m really missing, he’s apparantly decided to blow off all election related discussions and that’s where I’m hanging most of the time.)
elucidator, who make me laugh out loud, he’s a marvelous smartass.
And now Zut , for this thread and everything he’s expressed in it.
stoid
Zut’s point is well taken, I believe. It’s hard to separate a stupid idea from the fact that the person proposing it seems chronically stupid. But, if I understand his point, we should attempt to make those distinctions. Ok, fair enough. Let’s all try to judge each stupid utterance that he comes up with on its own merits. On the other hand, what is equally intriguing to me, is how Gore stands out from the background as the INTELLIGENT one. (I think this is related to field theory - you’re either looking at the item or the background.) Now, I haven’t read his book (did he actually pen it?) but his performances sound so scripted that I have absolutely no idea what he really thinks about any of “his” positions. Did HE have anything intelligent to say about the death penalty? Did he have anything intelligent to say about anything? Not while I was listening. These guys are both a couple of lightweights. Having a particular stance on an issue - i.e. I want this to be policy - doesn’t say anything about WHY it should be policy. What do you THINK? WHY should it be policy? It’s these conversations that give us insight into the mind of the beholder. We’ve had none of that.
Zut, all of your reasoning strikes me as entirely on target. But it seems to me that you are, in a sense, preaching to the converted. That is, most people are very open to arguments like yours once they hear them (which is not to say that you don’t deserve much credit for setting them forth so persuasively).
Once one accepts the idea that a candidate’s alleged stupidity (or, for that matter, driving record, marital status, exaggerations or what have you) do not supercede the importance of a substantive discussion of the issues, what you are left with is a near-monopoly media that have no commercial incentive to provide us with this substance, and no statutory obligation to do so. Part of this is to do with two major telecommunications acts (one during Reagan and one during Clinton) that stripped broadcasters of their duties to use our airwaves in ways that benefit the public. (If you are interested, there’s a link I can post on this subject.)
Of course, this isn’t the only factor. But what I’m saying is that your really smart arguments deserve to put in a broader context.
CC makes another good point: The corollary of my original argument is that because Bush has a rep as a dummy, Gore gets a free pass on the “stupidity factor.” Or, conversely, because Gore has a rep as an exaggerator, Bush gets a free pass on the “character issue.”
What that means is that if Bush says something demonstrably wrong, it’s because he’s a dummy. The possibility that he’s exaggerating is never even entertained. And, of course, if Gore says something demonstrably wrong, it’s because he’s lying; the possibility that he’s just ignorant is never even entertained.
Must be the “Z” on my chest. At least, that’s what I see in the mirror.
Mandelstam: Thanks for the complement. Agreement all around, although I’d rather not get into the “giving the public what it wants” argument that pops up in discussions about the media. I’ll just say that the public ought to demand better, and leave it at that.
zut, I see what you’re saying. It’s just this problem that I have. Either I’m the most self-centered person in the world, or I am overly generous to the public at large. But I think everyone is reasonable. I believe that people hear Bush say that religion was here long before Darwin, so he doesn’t see any problem with teaching creationism in school, they will notice that Bush has a problem with the seperation of church and state.
Or when he says that he’ll think up a foreign policy once he becomes president, this means that he has no foreign policy.
I’m not being sarcastic. I seriously have this problem with assuming people are at least as observant as I am and when they don’t see something so obvious I’m shocked. I guess I have to watch Jerry Springer every now and then to remind that this is not necessarily true.
Ah, but the “giving the public what it wants” reply is to the media debate what the “Gore exaggerates/Bush is dumb” story line is the election: which is to say, a dumbed-down impediment to a genuine democracy.
But that’s not at all to say that I don’t respect a person’s right to avoid a debate that doesn’t interest him or her. And this is, after all, your thread.