I Told You So

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Not getting enough out of this “I told you so?” Proactively posting “I told you so’s” for 2006? Wow, you are weak. I mean very weak.

If only we could get back the introspection and understanding that we had in the 90’s. Clinton must have completely appealed to Bricker with his introspection and understanding.

[Bricker]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Not getting enough out of this “I told you so?” Proactively posting “I told you so’s” for 2006? Wow, you are weak. I mean very weak.

If only we could get back the introspection and understanding that we had in the 90’s. Clinton must have completely appealed to Bricker with his introspection and understanding.

Was it weak, or strong, to consistently and confidently predict the winner in 2004 in advance, and never waver from that, and expose myself to all the jeers and snarkiness I’d get if I were wrong?

I’m asking the wrong guy. You couldn’t put up anything besides weak-assed talk. And now that your talk proved utterly wrong, you’re finally willing to back it up with… um… MORE weak-assed talk.

Get back to me when you grow some balls, bubby.

[duffer]

@RedFury

Doesn’t look like you’ll be finding out in the near future either:

**Screams will not be heard **

**
Then again, you could always rely on the Doper ubermensch who hobnobs with “professors at the Army War College” to give you the inside scoop.

On preview: no worries, gobear. I can see how my post may have been misconstrued.

No, we’ll rely on you and the fucking Guardian. :rolleyes: Maybe from now on I’ll just quote NewsMax exclusively for my news.

And CNN (7th paragraph) comfirms what I’ve seen elsewhere. We’ll be embedding reporters to keep the casualty reports honest.

When come back, bring sense.

[TonyF]

@Bricker

Despite huge amounts of evidence that one factor that played in peopl’s decision to vote for Bush was the shrill and incessant hatred of middle America and its values that the left espouses, many of the liberals here have continued to deny that either it exists, or, if it does exist, it influenced votes, or, if it influenced votes, the voters so influenced were idiots.

Have you considered the reverse?

I’m not trying to challenge you here, but consider the other perspective. Would you be inherently pleased hearing, “I didn’t much favor one or the other, but that Coulter chick just pissed me off. Kerry got my vote.”

That’s ludicrous, and I’ll tell you why - because it addresses each point above.

1. A lot of my side has legitimate criticisms of Bush and these values.
   Given that these criticisms are (to say the least) irritating,
2. A person should, ideally, vote on issues and positions, not as a reaction to the propaganda of the other side.
   Given that a person does vote as a reaction, you get the above:
3. Voting for someone as a reaction to the other side’s propaganda is ludicrous.
   This is (ideally) not worth examination.

As for 3, I think it’s fairly self evident; if you can’t figure it out, I would suggest you’re unaware that both sides use distasteful methods in getting their message out. I am, of course, open to criticism in this idea.

I set a trap…

And now your reaction is to… call them morons. That doesn’t help the problem, does it? It doesn’t even acknowledge that the problem exists. The goal in an election is to sell people on your side’s point of view. The method of denying there’s a problem, and then saying that people that didn’t get the sale are idiots really won’t work.

Agreed. The problem is that - to us, at least - we have to acknowledge the idea of “I voted for Bush because I don’t like <leftist pundit>” as being worthy of debate. This is the core of it.

And that’s why they lost in 2000, in 2002, in 2004, and will lose again in 2006. Because they won’t use any introspection and understanding. Because they just don’t get it.

That may be part of it…

But let me offer a counter argument. Actually, I won’t even go that far; all I ask for is a simple proof by counter-example -

Can you come up with a sizeable number of people that voted for Kerry because of the Republican campaign machine?

[pencilpusher]

My opinion of Bush is he is a religious zealot who wishes to cram his religious beliefs up our asses without lube. I hate his everloving guts and wish he were sailing the islands of Bahama right now instead of going in for another 4 years. That said, I hope he has a prosperous 4 years and gets the hell out of office before he causes WW3! :mad:

As for the OP… shut the hell up already. I didn’t vote for the man but your peacock attitude is bullshit. Grow up would ya?

[RedFury]

@duffer

No, we’ll rely on you and the fucking Guardian. :rolleyes: Maybe from now on I’ll just quote NewsMax exclusively for my news.

And CNN (7th paragraph) comfirms what I’ve seen elsewhere. We’ll be embedding reporters to keep the casualty reports honest.

When come back, bring sense.

Hey dipshit, when come back, rub your two braincells together and then read the following.

From my cite:

Now the camp’s dream-like unreality is distorting every news report filed on the preparations for the onslaught on Falluja. We don’t know, and won’t know, anything about what happens in the next few days except for what the US military authorities choose to let us know.** It’s long since been too dangerous for journalists to move around unless they are embedded with the US forces.** There is almost no contact left with civilians still in Falluja, the only information is from those who have left.

This is how the fantasy runs: a city the size of Brighton is now only ever referred to as a “militants’ stronghold” or “insurgents’ redoubt”. The city is being “softened up” with precision attacks from the air. Pacifying Falluja has become the key to stabilising the country ahead of the January elections. The “final assault” is imminent, in which the foreigners who have infiltrated the almost deserted Iraqi city with their extremist Islam will be “cleared”, “rooted out” or “crushed”. Or, as one marine put it: “We will win the hearts and minds of Falluja by ridding the city of insurgents. We’re doing that by patrolling the streets and killing the enemy.”

These are the questionable assumptions and make-believe which are now all that the embedded journalists with the US forces know to report. Every night, the tone gets a little more breathless and excited as the propaganda operation to gear the troops up for battle coopts the reporters into its collective psychology.

From yours:

The Iraqi commandos moved in aboard Marines trucks escorted by armored vehicles, according to a pool reporter embedded with the contingent.

<snip>

U.S. warplanes, including powerful AC-130 gunships, have bombarded insurgent targets in recent days ahead of the offensive. Several explosions jolted the region early Saturday, with fireballs lighting up the nighttime sky and the sound of AC-130 cannon fire rattling the area.

U.S. tanks were also engaged in the northeastern part of Falluja, and artillery was fired at insurgent positions. Machine gun and small-arms fire could be heard as well.

**“We’re going to start at one end of the city, and we’re not going to stop until we get to the other,” said Lt. Col. Pete Newell, a battalion commander from the U.S. Army’s 1st Infantry Division. “If there’s anybody left when that happens, we’re going to turn around and we’re going to go back and finish it.”

**
-My bolding.

Now, in the unlikely event that you’ve managed to warm your two braincells to above room-temperature IQ, you should be able to figure out that The Guardian report is only confirmed by your own CNN cite.

Trust the upcoming carnage will live up to your expectations.

[duffer]

@pencilpusher

My opinion of Bush is he is a religious zealot who wishes to cram his religious beliefs up our asses without lube.

Polls show 87% of masochistic Log Cabin Republicans voted for him on this promise alone!

[FinnAgain]

@Bricker

Despite huge amounts of evidence that one factor that played in peopl’s decision to vote for Bush was the shrill and incessant hatred of middle America and its values that the left espouses, many of the liberals here have continued to deny that either it exists, or, if it does exist, it influenced votes, or, if it influenced votes, the voters so influenced were idiots.

I can’t quite figure this one out…
All matters of pragmatics aside, why, exactly, are these people not idiots?

Yes yes, I understand, if we want to ‘earn’ their votes, we have to make them feel all warm and snuggly, but honestly, just between us Dopers, fighting ignorance here, why on earth is it not totally idiotic to vote for or against a candidate because of what non-candidate-talking-heads-say?

Would you, personally, have decided to vote for Kerry because Rush Limbaugh is a gaseous windbag?

If someone chose the president of our nation and the commander in chief of our armed forces based on what a comedian said, are they an idiot? What if it was an actor? A film maker? A talkshow host?

Is it valid to say that voting on anything other than issues is foolish and that voting on total non-issues is ridiculously stupid, bordering on irresponsible-as-a-citizen?

@Bricker

Many answers noted the hostile and dismissive attitude they picked up from the left - not from Kerry, mind you, but from Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, and the like. They also cited the hostile attitude of the left here on this board as emblematic of the issue.

Again, isn’t it tremendously irresponsible for citizens of this nation to elect a president based on what Finnagain says on a message board, or what Michael Moore does with his films? (yes, I’m aware that to a degree the DNC embraced Moore, but that is a separate issue. If someone was upset by the DNC’s actions in embracing him, that’s fine. If someone is upset by his actions, shouldn’t they just not pay to see his films and evaluate Kerry on his own merits?)

@Bricker

These are not new. But most posters here continue to disregard this as a possibility. “If you voted based on how much you hate Michael Moore, then you’re a moron!”

Why can’t both be true?
I can admit that it’s a possibility, I can also say that if that was what you based your vote on, you’re a moron.

I mean, honestly… I was unaware that the ticket was “Kerry-Edwards-Garrafalo”

@Bricker

Er… exactly the problem. People DID do that. And now your reaction is to… call them morons. That doesn’t help the problem, does it? It doesn’t even acknowledge that the problem exists. The goal in an election is to sell people on your side’s point of view. The method of denying there’s a problem, and then saying that people that didn’t get the sale are idiots really won’t work.

To a large degree the political game is one of deception.
But aren’t we dedicated to fighting ignorance?
If people are morons for voting based on what an actor says, or a pundit, why shouldn’t we call them on it?
Let the politicians worry about winning votes.
I care more about truth.

This is my moral value

@Bricker

Just as the drunk Barney did not get it - that if Lisa says he’s scaring her, then YES, he is scaring her – so too it’s becoming clear to me that the left doesn’t get it. You don’t get it.

No, I get it.
Many people, by their own admission, abdicated their responsibility as citizens and instead acted like highschool students engaged in a popularity contest.

@Bricker

There will be replies to this post, telling me that I’m wrong, that such voters are idiots, or that they’re lying - they never would have been Democratic voters anyway, or that they’re exceptions… anything except admitting the truth: these are real people, there are a lot of them, and this is what happened.

Why are you setting up this fallacious dichotomy?
There are real people, maybe even a lot of them, who are morons.

@Bricker

The True Believers can’t bring themselves to admit or even understand it.

I’d agree.
But I’d say that the True Believers aren’t those who’re upset that people made their decision of who to vote for based on such moronic ‘logic’

@Bricker

And that’s why they lost in 2000, in 2002, in 2004, and will lose again in 2006. Because they won’t use any introspection and understanding. Because they just don’t get it.

I think they understand all too well.

But you are most likely right, in order to win, the opponents of people like George W. Bush will have to adopt much, much, much dirtier tactics. We’ll have to out-Rove-Rove. We’ll have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Oh, and by the way, no, most of them probably wouldn’t have voted for the democrats anyways. You know why? Because they have blinders on. The tone of the left was awful, just awful! But Colter calling everybody on the left a treasonous bastard was just fine. Ditto for Rush. Etc…

[yosemite]

I’m not Bricker, but I’d like to add my two cents:

@FinnAgain

Again, isn’t it tremendously irresponsible for citizens of this nation to elect a president based on what Finnagain says on a message board, or what Michael Moore does with his films?

I think that it probably takes more than that. Like, a lot of obnoxiousness, of hostility, and so forth. Not just a few guys.

Also take into account that if a potential voter is undecided on an issue and most of what they get from the advocates of a particular side is static and hostility, then they’re going to be less receptive to that side. After a while, they’ll start to be distrustful of that side. Even if that side has cornered the market on truth, it’s too late. They’ve turned people away because of the shitty attitude displayed by many.

Why can’t both be true?
I can admit that it’s a possibility, I can also say that if that was what you based your vote on, you’re a moron.

Why don’t you start a thread and ask these so-called “moronic” people what exactly they experienced, then?

I find it doubtful that one or two negative experiences was enough to turn people away from a particular side. After all, I’m sure more than a few Republicans can’t stand Ann Colter, but her obnoxiousness didn’t stop them from voting Republican.

You know why? Because they have blinders on. The tone of the left was awful, just awful! But Colter calling everybody on the left a treasonous bastard was just fine. Ditto for Rush. Etc…

I’ve read posts here on the SDMB from conservatives and Republicans who do not like these people. Once again, I think it takes more than a Colter or a Rush to turn people away. And I am equally sure that some Democrats don’t like Al Franken—but it didn’t stop them from voting for Kerry.

I suspect that the reasons are a little deeper than you want to admit.

Also realize that people tend to remember the dramatic, flamboyant, negative experiences most vividly. For best results, it should be everyone’s job try to minimize such behavior as much as possible in their own lives (and those around them), to try to counteract the negativity. For instance, no conservative can muzzle Ann Colter, but they can (if they want some measure of credibility) to distance themselves from her, not quote her, and not emulate her style. Same goes for those on the left.

This is just my perspective. I am sure I’ll be ignored. Told I’m wrong. Kind of like my mom tries to deny that her nagging, nagging, nagging about religion (and guilting my sisters and me about everything related to religion) had anything to do with us resisting her message and being reluctant to go to church. Oh no. It’s all our fault that we ran screaming from her, because, see, her message was right. (And I’m not denying that parts of her message were right—but she sucked at delivering it and we understandably didn’t want to hear it. She carries some responsiblity for that.)

[FinnAgain]

@yosemite

I’m not Bricker, but I’d like to add my two cents:I think that it probably takes more than that. Like, a lot of obnoxiousness, of hostility, and so forth. Not just a few guys.

Well, if one stupid reason isn’t enough, how about a dozen? Does that make it less stupid? ~sighs~
Again, no matter how many obnoxious democrats there were, none of them would be in the whitehouse other than the candidates As such, voting based on one obnoxious democrat or ten million is idiotic.
If John Kerry really would’ve been better for this country, and someone didn’t vote for him because every single democrat they knew in person was an asshole… who really loses out?

@yosemite

Also take into account that if a potential voter is undecided on an issue and most of what they get from the advocates of a particular side is static and hostility, then they’re going to be less receptive to that side.

A good point.
I would still say that it is a citizen’s duty to look at the substance of the argument rather than the style.
Especially when it wasn’t John Kerry being obnoxious.
Especially since the republicans were just as obnoxious as the democrats.

@yosemite

After a while, they’ll start to be distrustful of that side. Even if that side has cornered the market on truth, it’s too late. They’ve turned people away because of the shitty attitude displayed by many.

And that is why people who voted that way would’ve failed in their responsibility as citizens.
If one side really did corner the market on truth, then they were right. And no matter how shrill the truth was, it was still truth.

@yosemite

Why don’t you start a thread and ask these so-called “moronic” people what exactly they experienced, then?

1. Because I’m not a politician, I care about truth more than winning elections.
2. Because even if they tell me that they thought that every democratic-talking-head was a rapist, that still doesn’t prove a damn thing about John Kerry.
3. Because I don’t want to invite people to post in a thread and then insult them, as I would most likely feel inclined to do if they told me they voted against Kerry because of what people who had nothing to do with Kerry said/thought/did/sounded like

@yosemite

I find it doubtful that one or two negative experiences was enough to turn people away from a particular side.After all, I’m sure more than a few Republicans can’t stand Ann Colter, but her obnoxiousness didn’t stop them from voting Republican.
I’ve read posts here on the SDMB from conservatives and Republicans who do not like these people. Once again, I think it takes more than a Colter or a Rush to turn people away. And I am equally sure that some Democrats don’t like Al Franken—but it didn’t stop them from voting for Kerry.

Yes… so I don’t understand…
or does it boil down, in your estimation, to there being a lot of obnoxious dems and not that many obnoxious repubs?

@yosemite

I suspect that the reasons are a little deeper than you want to admit.

Really?
Let’s play a game, why don’t you suggest ten different deeper reasons?
Reasons other than they-didn’t-like-people-who-weren’t-running-for-president-anyways.
Or
they-didn’t-like-people-who-are-democrats-but-who-have-and-will-never-run-for-office.

@yosemite

Also realize that people tend to remember the dramatic, flamboyant, negative experiences most vividly. For best results, it should be everyone’s job try to minimize such behavior as much as possible in their own lives (and those around them), to try to counteract the negativity. For instance, no conservative can muzzle Ann Colter, but they can (if they want some measure of credibility) to distance themselves from her, not quote her, and not emulate her style. Same goes for those on the left.

Agreed.

But as of yet, in everything I’ve read and seen, I’ve seen nobody who asserted that John Kerry supported such things. Maybe I’ve missed it? (honestly, maybe I have, I’ll admit that possibility)

@yosemite

This is just my perspective. I am sure I’ll be ignored. Told I’m wrong.

I hope you don’t feel ignored.
I do feel that you’re wrong, but I invite you to use facts (no matter how they’re presented) in order to convince me.

@yosemite

Kind of like my mom tries to deny that her nagging, nagging, nagging about religion (and guilting my sisters and me about everything related to religion) had anything to do with us resisting her message and being reluctant to go to church. Oh no. It’s all our fault that we ran screaming from her, because, see, her message was right. (And I’m not denying that parts of her message were right—but she sucked at delivering it and we understandably didn’t want to hear it. She carries some responsiblity for that.)

But, see, in the final analysis, either religion is bad or good, and your mom’s delivery does not affect the objective value it has.
Same with politican candidates.

[yosemite]

@FinnAgain

Well, if one stupid reason isn’t enough, how about a dozen? Does that make it less stupid? ~sighs~

If all you get is crap from one side, it’s hard to ignore. It’s human nature to not ignore it.

For instance, I sometimes say that people are mean. Because in my experience, a lot of them are. Does that mean that people are mean? Well, no. Not all of them. But when you’ve seen enough meaness in your life, you kind of come to that conclusion. Your experience colors the facts.

Again, no matter how many obnoxious democrats there were, none of them would be in the whitehouse other than the candidates As such, voting based on one obnoxious democrat or ten million is idiotic.

But the message that the candidate is representing is being colored by a multitude of jerks, that colors your opinion. And you haven’t got a lifetime or a decade to get over it. Just a few months, perhaps.

A good point.
I would still say that it is a citizen’s duty to look at the substance of the argument rather than the style.
Especially when it wasn’t John Kerry being obnoxious.
Especially since the republicans were just as obnoxious as the democrats.

Everyone’s experience is different.

No, Kerry wasn’t obnoxious. But non-obnoxiousness doesn’t win elections. Issues do, and if your access to the message is being soured by the screaming of assholes, you never really get a good perspective on the issues.

And once again, sometimes sifting through the crap to find the nugget of truth takes time. And not everyone has the energy to put in that time. They’ve been worn out by the negativity.

And that is why people who voted that way would’ve failed in their responsibility as citizens.
If one side really did corner the market on truth, then they were right. And no matter how shrill the truth was, it was still truth.

But when the truth is covered with a steaming pile of shit, it’s harder to uncover it, isn’t it? And it takes time to uncover it.

1. Because I’m not a politician, I care about truth more than winning elections.

It’s a simple question, and you won’t ask it? You don’t have to be a politician to ask it. Why would you think that you should be? And since you’ve got such strong opinions on these people being morons, why aren’t you willing to go to the source? That makes no sense.

2. Because even if they tell me that they thought that every democratic-talking-head was a rapist, that still doesn’t prove a damn thing about John Kerry.

How do you know what they’re going to say, if you won’t even ask?

3. Because I don’t want to invite people to post in a thread and then insult them, as I would most likely feel inclined to do if they told me they voted against Kerry because of what people who had nothing to do with Kerry said/thought/did/sounded like

You can control yourself, you know. No one is forcing you to be insulting.

Are you saying that your quest for the real truth is going to be hampered because you don’t think you can control yourself and not be insulting? Do you realize how that sounds?

I’m sorry, none of your reasons hold water.

Yes… so I don’t understand…
or does it boil down, in your estimation, to there being a lot of obnoxious dems and not that many obnoxious repubs?

No side has cornered the market on obnoxiousness. But the obnoxiousness of the Republicans (which I am sure exists) is not what’s being discussed here. And, if the obnoxiousness of the Republican side caused people to not vote for the Republican side, it wasn’t enough to turn the election this time, was it?

Really?
Let’s play a game, why don’t you suggest ten different deeper reasons?

No, let’s play are much easier game: you ASK the people who voted this way why they did?

I hope you don’t feel ignored.
I do feel that you’re wrong, but I invite you to use facts (no matter how they’re presented) in order to convince me.

The facts might be better found from the people who claim that they were turned away from voting for Kerry based on the overall negative tone. But you refuse to ask them. I didn’t vote for or against any candidate based on tone, so I don’t have all the answers that you seek. I have my theories, but not factual answers. You need to go to the source, but you’ve given several flimsy reasons why you don’t want to. That’s not my problem.

But, see, in the final analysis, either religion is bad or good, and your mom’s delivery does not affect the objective value it has.
Same with politican candidates.

It took us years to figure that out. It didn’t happen in a few months. That level of negativity is pretty strong and it takes time to “decompress.” My sisters and I were only able to decompress from my mom’s obnoxious nagging after getting out of the house. It didn’t happen overnight. And she did bear some responsibility for that. We can hardly be blamed for wanting to avoid her message, even if it was right. I got sick of her trying to tack the blame on us at the time, and it still won’t wash.

[Blalron]

@yosemite

But the message that the candidate is representing is being colored by a multitude of jerks, that colors your opinion. And you haven’t got a lifetime or a decade to get over it. Just a few months, perhaps.
Everyone’s experience is different.

Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jack Chick, Rick Santorum, Fred Phelps, Maggie Gallagher…

Need I go on?

[yosemite]

@Blalron

Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jack Chick, Rick Santorum, Fred Phelps, Maggie Gallagher…

Need I go on?

So? Am I denying that there is obnoxiousness on the Republican side? Didn’t I already say that people should distance themselves from obnoxious personalities if they want to have credibility?

[Starving_Artist]

Ah, yosemite…still tilting at windmills, I see.

Good luck.

[FinnAgain]

@yosemite

If all you get is crap from one side, it’s hard to ignore. It’s human nature to not ignore it.

So, don’t ignore it.
Take issue with the specific people who were assholes and then go and vote for a president based on issues.
This isn’t rocket science.

@yosemite

But the message that the candidate is representing is being colored by a multitude of jerks, that colors your opinion. And you haven’t got a lifetime or a decade to get over it. Just a few months, perhaps.
Everyone’s experience is different.

I don’t understand this…how do the words that come out of Kerry’s mouth become colored by the words that come out of Michael Moore’s?
Is this some strange new form of alchemy?

@yosemite

No, Kerry wasn’t obnoxious. But non-obnoxiousness doesn’t win elections. Issues do, and if your access to the message is being soured by the screaming of assholes, you never really get a good perspective on the issues.

How is your access to the message soured?
I went to John Kerry’s webiste and I wasn’t yelled, even once, by Michael Moore.
Why is it that other people couldn’t do the same, or do the research on their own?

@yosemite

And once again, sometimes sifting through the crap to find the nugget of truth takes time. And not everyone has the energy to put in that time. They’ve been worn out by the negativity.
But when the truth is covered with a steaming pile of shit, it’s harder to uncover it, isn’t it? And it takes time to uncover it.

Yes, it takes both time and energy to participate fully in the democratic process as an informed voter.

@yosemite

It’s a simple question, and you won’t ask it? You don’t have to be a politician to ask it. Why would you think that you should be? And since you’ve got such strong opinions on these people being morons, why aren’t you willing to go to the source? That makes no sense.

Allow me to make sense of it for you.
If someone voted against john kerry because of what other people said, they’re idiots.
If, however, they didn’t vote for him because they didn’t know what he stood for, or didn’t do the research, those are seperate issues.
If they abdicated their responsibility as citizens because there are some obnoxious democrats, they’re still at fault.

@yosemite

How do you know what they’re going to say, if you won’t even ask?

Because “I didn’t vote for John Kerry because people on the left are assholes.” doesn’t require any further conversation, there’s nothing deeper, that’s the reason right here.
Now, if the real reason was “I couldn’t discover what John Kerry thought because all I heard was people calling me names and no factual discourse.” that’s totally different, and there’s a possibility for discussion.

@yosemite

You can control yourself, you know. No one is forcing you to be insulting.

Yes, I am well aware that in the ultimate metaphysical sense I can choose my own behavior.
However, I love this country, I am a patriot, and it sickens and saddens me that people might honestly have voted for George Bush because Michael Moore is an asshole.
I don’t feel the need to play politics, and I would express my disgust.

@yosemite

Are you saying that your quest for the real truth is going to be hampered because you don’t think you can control yourself and not be insulting? Do you realize how that sounds?

No, I’m saying that if people voted for Bush because some liberals were obnoxious, that’s the reason right there. No more digging necessary. No “real” truth. That’s the truth, right there.
If that’s not the reason they voted for Bush, they shouldn’t say it is, now should they?

@yosemite

No side has cornered the market on obnoxiousness. But the obnoxiousness of the Republicans (which I am sure exists) is not what’s being discussed here. And, if the obnoxiousness of the Republican side caused people to not vote for the Republican side, it wasn’t enough to turn the election this time, was it?

Why aren’t we discussing the obnoxiousness of republicans?
You are claiming that swing voters cast their ballots because of obnoxiousness.
I point out that both sides were obnoxious.
If that’s the case, you can no longer choose a side that isn’t obnoxious, so saying “that side was obnoxious!” ceases to be a defining characteristic.

@yosemite

No, let’s play are much easier game: you ASK the people who voted this way why they did?

Nope. I’m asking you, here and now, to defend your position.
You said there are deeper reasons.
I am asking you to give proof or retract.

@yosemite

The facts might be better found from the people who claim that they were turned away from voting for Kerry based on the overall negative tone. But you refuse to ask them.

Because I don’t need to ask them!
Because they already said what their reason was!

If they’re turned away by the tone, then that’s why they were turned away.
If they give something else as their reason, that’s their reason.
Unless they’re lying and/or for some reason not giving the, ‘real’, ‘deeper’, reason.

@yosemite

I didn’t vote for or against any candidate based on tone, so I don’t have all the answers that you seek. I have my theories, but not factual answers. You need to go to the source, but you’ve given several flimsy reasons why you don’t want to. That’s not my problem.

I have gone to the source.
I’ve seen people who said “I voted for Bush because <insert democratic-talking-heads> are rude/obnoxious/arrogant!”
I trust that is what they honestly think, and that’s their honest reason.

@yosemite

It took us years to figure that out. It didn’t happen in a few months. That level of negativity is pretty strong and it takes time to “decompress.” My sisters and I were only able to decompress from my mom’s obnoxious nagging after getting out of the house. It didn’t happen overnight. And she did bear some responsibility for that. We can hardly be blamed for wanting to avoid her message, even if it was right. I got sick of her trying to tack the blame on us at the time, and it still won’t wash.

Okay…
Analogies are always suspect… this one is getty shaky.

Let’s say that your mom told you to brush your teeth, and she was obnoxious, and nagging, and a real royal bitch about it.
And because of that, you let your teeth rot out of your head.
Who, exactly, is the joke on?

It is a citizen’s duty to be informed and aware of the issues in an election.
If they abdicate this responsibility, it is their own fault, no matter how negative any side is.

[yosemite]

@FinnAgain

So, don’t ignore it.
Take issue with the specific people who were assholes and then go and vote for a president based on issues.
This isn’t rocket science.

Did I say that these people didn’t vote on issues, and based their vote on who was “nicest”? No, I don’t think I did. I said that getting to the truth was more difficult when the message is covered with shit.

The thread that has some of these people (who you are reluctant to question) doesn’t have anyone saying that they voted against Kerry only because of the “tone.” Here’s a sample from one poster there:

@Bill H

The anti-Bush rhetoric I got on a daily basis (primarily from this board I might add) really galvanized my decision. There are a lot of good, valid reasons to vote against Mr. Bush. But 90% of what I heard was either lies, mis-truths or insults. Saying these sorts of things probably made the speaker feel good about themselves, but it really really turned me off. It’s the whole Fahrenheit 9/11 mentality, not really paying attention to facts, not really having a plan for things to be better, just whining and trying to stick to to the Man. And though Mr. Kerry isn’t the nut-job that Michael Moore is, I ended up feeling his campaign was really just a polished version of Mr. Moore’s philosophy.

@KidCharlemagne

“Galvanized” is the perfect word to describe the effects of the anti-Bush rhetoric on me. When all of the left’s arguments are hyperbole, insults, and fact-mining, you begin to wonder if they have any valid points at all. I know one pollster came to the conclusion that Michael Moore’s rants and documentaries put more people over to Bush than Kerry.

(bolding mine)

@Cardinal

Clue to mouthfoaming political ranters: You’re not going to convince anyone with half a brain just by calling people or candidates stupid and spewing obvious propaganda everywhere.

There’s more, but apparently you don’t want to explore it. But it looks like it’s a little “deeper” than just “their side was obnoxious.” They were not persuaded by the other side. They saw something wanting in Kerry, and the other side did nothing to dissuade them. Or, they were ambivalent about Kerry, but further research didn’t impress them, and the rhetoric from others on Kerry’s side completely soured them. Or, they saw something preferable about Bush, and the other side did nothing to dissuade them. Instead, much of what the other side offered was a lot of shit and negativity.

I don’t understand this…how do the words that come out of Kerry’s mouth become colored by the words that come out of Michael Moore’s?
Is this some strange new form of alchemy?

You’re seriously thinking that the people voted against Kerry, even though they could see he was a better candidate, just because of Michael Moore? Of course not. I see no indication of that at all.

How is your access to the message soured?
I went to John Kerry’s webiste and I wasn’t yelled, even once, by Michael Moore.

“Reasearch on their own”? Yeah, and having to wade through a lot of crap to get at it? There’s a lot of negative crap out there, on both sides.

Yes, it takes both time and energy to participate fully in the democratic process as an informed voter.

So let’s just make it as difficult and as unpleasant as possible for the voter, since they have limited time and energy. And then when they don’t vote for “your” side (because they claim that the message was so negative and ultimately lost credibility in their eyes) then blame them! That’s the ticket!

Oh wait. Your “side” still loses out. And isn’t that the bottom line? Your side lost out this time. These voters gave reasons why your side lost their vote, including certain behaviors. Behaviors that can be avoided in the future. But let’s not address that. Let’s just blame people for not wanting (or having the energy) to patiently suffer through the (very preventable, very avoidable) loads of shit slung at them.

Allow me to make sense of it for you.
If someone voted against john kerry because of what other people said, they’re idiots.
If, however, they didn’t vote for him because they didn’t know what he stood for, or didn’t do the research, those are seperate issues.
If they abdicated their responsibility as citizens because there are some obnoxious democrats, they’re still at fault.

Oh sure. Because they were inundated by negativity. Because perhaps they were leaning towards the one side (Bush) to begin with, and when they looked to be convinced to change their mind, all they got was tons of crap. So who is to blame for that? Oh right. It’s all their fault. Why? Perhaps because they voted the way that they preferred and made the most sense to them, and because they didn’t see enough persuasive information on the other side, and they were given crap along with that. Or perhaps because they simply weren’t impressed by Kerry, and the negativity on top of that was just the icing on the cake.

Face it: your side had an opportunity to persuade some of them, and many on your side blew it. That’s what a lot of people are saying.

Because “I didn’t vote for John Kerry because people on the left are assholes.” doesn’t require any further conversation, there’s nothing deeper, that’s the reason right here.

Look at the thread that I linked to above again. It’s not that simple. I know you want it to be that simple, because you can blow it off. But it’s not. Review the thread. Ask questions. Stop dodging the issue.

Now, if the real reason was “I couldn’t discover what John Kerry thought because all I heard was people calling me names and no factual discourse.” that’s totally different, and there’s a possibility for discussion.

Well, it looks like that might be an element. Why don’t you ask?

Yes, I am well aware that in the ultimate metaphysical sense I can choose my own behavior.
However, I love this country, I am a patriot, and it sickens and saddens me that people might honestly have voted for George Bush because Michael Moore is an asshole.
I don’t feel the need to play politics, and I would express my disgust.

So you don’t want to ask, but you want to assume you know the answers to questions you’ve never asked? Why? Because you’re a patriot, is that it?

If that’s not the reason they voted for Bush, they shouldn’t say it is, now should they?

Read the thread again. That’s not what they’re saying. It’s not that cut and dried.

Start a new thread and ask pointed questions.

Why aren’t we discussing the obnoxiousness of republicans?

Because I don’t see Republicans lamenting the loss of an election. I don’t see anyone telling them that the “tone” from the Republican side was a contributing factor in that loss. That’s why.

You are claiming that swing voters cast their ballots because of obnoxiousness.
I point out that both sides were obnoxious.

I am always saying that both sides are obnoxious. Where have I denied that?

Nope. I’m asking you, here and now, to defend your position.
You said there are deeper reasons.
I am asking you to give proof or retract.

The thread I pointed to has the answers you seek. You just want to brush that off. Not my problem. I can’t answer their questions for them.

I trust that is what they honestly think, and that’s their honest reason.

Dodge, dodge dodge.

Okay…
Analogies are always suspect… this one is getty shaky.

Let’s say that your mom told you to brush your teeth, and she was obnoxious, and nagging, and a real royal bitch about it.
And because of that, you let your teeth rot out of your head.
Who, exactly, is the joke on?

In this case, both of us. We lose our teeth (ouch) and she and my dad would pay massive dental bills.

It is a citizen’s duty to be informed and aware of the issues in an election.
If they abdicate this responsibility, it is their own fault, no matter how negative any side is.

And so what happens if they don’t have the energy or inclination to wade through all the shit? The side that was trying to persuade them (and was doing a monumentally bad job of it) loses out, right?

Kind of like if my parents paid enormous dental bills. If my mom was a first class bitch about us brushing our teeth and as a consequence we have shitty teeth that result in massive dental bills, do you seriously think that my dad (a fiscally-minded person) wouldn’t have told her to reign it in, because her treatment was causing such a reaction from us? Or do you think he’d just look the other way as she continued to make teeth brushing as miserable as possible, and back her up when she continued to blame us for resisting proper dental care? Don’t you think he’d try to find a solution that worked and saved him money, rather than watching the dysfunctional cycle continue (her being a dental terror and our rotting teeth), and to only place the blame on us for the bad outcome?

What’s more important—getting positive results, or blaming other people for not wanting (or having the energy) to wade through shit in the hope that there might be some “Truth” underneath it all? Which is more important to you?

[FinnAgain]

yosemite: Kindly do not extent what I am saying beyond what I am saying.

I have said what I have said, I have not said what I have not said.

If anybody based their vote on the tone of one ‘side’, they’re a moron.

Okay? If the entire reason for their vote was based on that, they’re an idiot.
Thus, if that was the entire reason, it is the entire reason.
If there were other reasons, there were other reasons.

Citizens should not be passive consumers of information.
Campaigns should not be what ‘convinces’ citizens to vote a certain way.
Citizens should do the research, discover the facts, and make their own informed decisions. Even if it’s hard. Even if it requires sifting through lies, half truths, and bullshit.

@yosemite

There’s more, but apparently you don’t want to explore it. But it looks like it’s a little “deeper” than just “their side was obnoxious.” They were not persuaded by the other side. They saw something wanting in Kerry, and the other side did nothing to dissuade them. Or, they were ambivalent about Kerry, but further research didn’t impress them, and the rhetoric from others on Kerry’s side completely soured them. Or, they saw something preferable about Bush, and the other side did nothing to dissuade them. Instead, much of what the other side offered was a lot of shit and negativity.

What is there to explore?
I read the thread, people gave their reasons.
I trust that they were honest.

@yosemite

“Reasearch on their own”? Yeah, and having to wade through a lot of crap to get at it? There’s a lot of negative crap out there, on both sides.
So let’s just make it as difficult and as unpleasant as possible for the voter, since they have limited time and energy. And then when they don’t vote for “your” side (because they claim that the message was so negative and ultimately lost credibility in their eyes) then blame them! That’s the ticket!

John Kerry put out a message.
That message was not obnoxious or full of ‘crap’.
They could have easily done the research.
Excuses dont’ fly.
I don’t care how many screaming idiots there were, yes, I blame them for not doing the research.

@yosemite

Oh wait. Your “side” still loses out. And isn’t that the bottom line? Your side lost out this time. These voters gave reasons why your side lost their vote, including certain behaviors. Behaviors that can be avoided in the future. But let’s not address that. Let’s just blame people for not wanting (or having the energy) to patiently suffer through the (very preventable, very avoidable) loads of shit slung at them.

Again.
Click on John Kerry’s website.
Problem solved.

So yes, I blame them for not doing the research.

@yosemite

Oh sure. Because they were inundated by negativity. Because perhaps they were leaning towards the one side (Bush) to begin with, and when they looked to be convinced to change their mind, all they got was tons of crap. So who is to blame for that? Oh right. It’s all their fault. Why? Perhaps because they voted the way that they preferred and made the most sense to them, and because they didn’t see enough persuasive information on the other side, and they were given crap along with that. Or perhaps because they simply weren’t impressed by Kerry, and the negativity on top of that was just the icing on the cake.

So, in other words, they had other reasons, and also didn’t like the tone.
Note, they had other reasons.

@yosemite

Face it: your side had an opportunity to persuade some of them, and many on your side blew it. That’s what a lot of people are saying.
Look at the thread that I linked to above again. It’s not that simple. I know you want it to be that simple, because you can blow it off. But it’s not. Review the thread. Ask questions. Stop dodging the issue.

I’m not dodging any issue.
The tone of the debate around the issues has nothing to do with the issues.
If people couldn’t be bothered to take the time to be good citizens, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

@yosemite

Well, it looks like that might be an element. Why don’t you ask?
So you don’t want to ask, but you want to assume you know the answers to questions you’ve never asked? Why? Because you’re a patriot, is that it?

Yeah, because I’m a patriot, exactly.

Hoz zabout… it isn’t my job to ask, it’s their job to state their reasons and not be dishonest. I don’t have to quiz them on what their ‘real’ ‘deep’ reasons were. If they state that they had other reasons, then they had other reasons. If they state that they did not, they did not.

@yosemite

Read the thread again. That’s not what they’re saying. It’s not that cut and dried.

I wish there was a ::bangs head against wall:: smiley.

If they’re not saying that, then they’re not saying that!

@yosemite

Because I don’t see Republicans lamenting the loss of an election. I don’t see anyone telling them that the “tone” from the Republican side was a contributing factor in that loss. That’s why.

If people couldn’t get at the dems message because of negativity, and the repubs were also negative, then by that logic, they couldn’t get at their message either.

@yosemite

I am always saying that both sides are obnoxious. Where have I denied that?

::bangs head against wall::
Where did I say that you denied it?

I have said what I have said, I have not said what I have not said.

If someone claims they were turned off by the dems obnoxiousness, I think it’s only fair to say “hey, why then weren’t you turned off by the repubs obnoxiousness?”

And if they were only turned off by one side’s obnoxiousness, doesn’t that say something?

@yosemite

The thread I pointed to has the answers you seek. You just want to brush that off. Not my problem. I can’t answer their questions for them.

::bangs head against wall::

@yosemite

Dodge, dodge dodge.

wall, wall, wall.

If. People. Had. Other. Reasons. Then. They. Had. Other. Reasons.

If. They. Say. The. Reason. As. In. The. One. Singular. Reason. They. Voted. For. Bush. Was. That. The. Dems. Were. Obnoxious. They. Abdicated. Their. Responsiblities. As. Cizitens.

@yosemite

And so what happens if they don’t have the energy or inclination to wade through all the shit? The side that was trying to persuade them (and was doing a monumentally bad job of it) loses out, right?

No.
If one candidate is better, and they lose, the country loses.

I will note, again, this was not the “Kerry-Edwards-Garrafalo-Moore-whoever” campaign. There was no ‘side’ running for president.

@yosemite

Kind of like if my parents paid enormous dental bills. If my mom was a first class bitch about us brushing our teeth and as a consequence we have shitty teeth that result in massive dental bills, do you seriously think that my dad (a fiscally-minded person) wouldn’t have told her to reign it in, because her treatment was causing such a reaction from us? Or do you think he’d just look the other way as she continued to make teeth brushing as miserable as possible, and back her up when she continued to blame us for resisting proper dental care? Don’t you think he’d try to find a solution that worked and saved him money, rather than watching the dysfunctional cycle continue (her being a dental terror and our rotting teeth), and to only place the blame on us for the bad outcome?

Okay, this analogy is now beyond salvaging.

The fact remains.

Your health, your country’s welfare, etc… are your responsibility.
You can blame whoever you want, but in the end, you have to take responsibility for the consequences.
Even if someone was really really rude to you.

@yosemite

What’s more important—getting positive results, or blaming other people for not wanting (or having the energy) to wade through shit in the hope that there might be some “Truth” underneath it all? Which is more important to you?

I’ll take false dichotomies for 100 Alex.

A citizen’s responsibility is to make an informed decision come election day, even if that requires lots of work.

The dems should also refine how they package themselves.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

After trying out a number of witty retorts or profanity laced tirades, I think it best to simply remind you that pride goeth before the fall.

[elucidator]

Which wouldn’t be so much of a problem, if they weren’t taking the rest of us with them.

[Bricker]

@Hentor the Barbarian

After trying out a number of witty retorts or profanity laced tirades, I think it best to simply remind you that pride goeth before the fall.

Hmmm.

“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” Proverbs 16:18.

Your warning is well-placed, even if your quoting skills leave something to be desired. I had initially resolved to shove this in your face every time that o’ we-on-the-left-are-superior business reasserted itself, but you remind me that that is not a very worthy or productive attitude. I’ll try to knock off the arrogance here henceforth.