I Told You So

[Apos]

@yosemite

Maybe Moore himself wasn’t representative of Kerry’s side, but many of Kerry’s supporters loved this movie and highly recommened it. That film wasn’t some obscure, fringe project that only whack-jobs appreciated.

Sure, but what does Kerry do about this? He never mentioned Moore or cooperated with Moore. Moore wasn’t even invited to the DNC: he was there on a press junket, same as at the RNC. Both sides have their negative, harsh people. But in the case of Moore, he was at the very least more of an outsider to the Democrats and than the people on the Republican side.

Oh, I forgot to comment on this:No, I thought it was fairly obvious. Sort of like my friend wearing her ill-fitting pants. Looking in the mirror should have told her that she looked like absolute crap, but she wouldn’t believe it, and continued to not believe it. It felt strange to tell her something so blatantly obvious, but I felt bad that people were laughing at her. But she didn’t want to listen to me? Fine, fine, fine.

But again, this isn’t a serious critique of the situation. You are weighing one side of the balance and not the other. Sure, it’s blatantly obvious that being fired up and negative backfires to some extent. But then, that’s not any kind of real reason not to do it, because sometimes, like in the case of the Bush campaign: it doesn’t alienate as many people from your side as it does from the other side (defining Kerry early on). So sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. It didn’t for the Democrats this time (well, almost carely). What does that teach us, though? Not as much as you seem to think. Negative doesn’t work, but neither does not being negative?

The problem, again, is that you lecture as if you were imparting a moral lesson about politics: you lost because you sinned. But in reality, both sides sinned, and we might as easily play up the difference to the fact that Republicans were more organized at their perpetual mock outrage at Democratic sins than Democrats were at their perpetual mock outrage. But again: what’s the lesson here? If it wasn’t for this noise machine on the right, do you really think the right would have won BIGGER, because they sinned less and turned less people off? Or that, if not for the same on the left, the left would have won? I honestly just don’t see how that follows: it seems equally likely that the opposite could have happened. And yet that is precisely what you are arguing, acting as if you were pointing out some deep insight into politics.

Like I said before, when the Bush voters on that aforementioned thread explained that the “tone” was a factor in their voting choice, it seems pretty obvious that* something* is amiss. But hey, never mind. You know what’s best. You know what you see in the mirror, you know what pleases you. Who am I to argue with that?

Again, you are being dishonest about what I am saying. I am not saying that it’s not a problem, I am saying that this issue is less of a moral absolute than a tactical choice. Nevermind, of course, that I think that Democrats will get accused of having problems with “tone” whether there is anything to it or not (damned if we do, damned if we don’t). The issue is that Republicans wear shit on their pants too, and the whole shit on the pants seems to be politics as usual, not something that we can take some great lesson away from about how Democrats can simply get rid of it and all will be forgiven and they’ll win again. It’s just as equally likely that Republicans would win even bigger, for all we know. And the point is: you don’t know.

[Shodan]

@World Eater

And you’re so…special because you keep forgetting that Clinton didn’t start a war over it.

So Operation Desert Fox doesn’t count. Why - because it did not achieve either its primary goal (keeping Clinton from being impeached) or its secondary (forcing Saddam to abide by the inspection regime and give up his WMD)?

It seems you only define it as a “war” if it actually does something. Simply killing Iraqis to no effect drops off the radar.

Special indeed.

Regards,
Shodan

[TonyF]

@Apos

If it wasn’t for this noise machine on the right, do you really think the right would have won BIGGER, because they sinned less and turned less people off? Or that, if not for the same on the left, the left would have won? I honestly just don’t see how that follows: it seems equally likely that the opposite could have happened. And yet that is precisely what you are arguing, acting as if you were pointing out some deep insight into politics.

I honestly don’t know why I didn’t think of this earlier. :smack:
If the rule is to hold, then it must work both ways…

No; it seems that alienation wasn’t a major factor here - if it were, you’d see a)democrats going republican, b) republicans going democrat, and c) people - disenfranchised from both side’s mud-slinging - abstaining from voting.

But at best, we’ve got some idea that a) happened, no evidence of b), and the opposite of c).

The issue is that Republicans wear shit on their pants too, and the whole shit on the pants seems to be politics as usual, not something that we can take some great lesson away from about how Democrats can simply get rid of it and all will be forgiven and they’ll win again. It’s just as equally likely that Republicans would win even bigger, for all we know. And the point is: you don’t know.

Just wanted to echo that.

[World_Eater]

@Shodan

So Operation Desert Fox doesn’t count. Why - because it did not achieve either its primary goal (keeping Clinton from being impeached) or its secondary (forcing Saddam to abide by the inspection regime and give up his WMD)?

Jesus, you guys and your little semantic games.

Clinton didn’t invade over it.

Same point stands, now new and improved.

[yosemite]

@Apos

Sure, but what does Kerry do about this?

Nothing he can do. However, if droves of Kerry supporters think Moore (or at least his film) is greater than sliced bread, then that says something to the public at large. Kerry can’t do anything about what his supporters do, but the supporters can do something about it.

But again, this isn’t a serious critique of the situation. You are weighing one side of the balance and not the other. Sure, it’s blatantly obvious that being fired up and negative backfires to some extent. But then, that’s not any kind of real reason not to do it, because sometimes, like in the case of the Bush campaign: it doesn’t alienate as many people from your side as it does from the other side (defining Kerry early on). So sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

And when it doesn’t work, do you think there’s a possibility that some dynamics might be different? (Like, the type of nastiness, the methods used, the personalities most visible that were using it?) That’s a case that I can’t make cogently myself, but I suspect that it might be the case. Will it be considered?

It didn’t for the Democrats this time (well, almost carely). What does that teach us, though? Not as much as you seem to think. Negative doesn’t work, but neither does not being negative?

:: throws up hands :: Whatever. You might be right. Being even nastier next time might just be the ticket for you. You know what’s best. You go for it.

The problem, again, is that you lecture as if you were imparting a moral lesson about politics: you lost because you sinned.

Well, I hadn’t really thought of it that way. I thought it was, “You lost because this thing didn’t WORK for you.” Whatever it was, it wasn’t WORKING. If it doesn’t work, you don’t keep doing it. But hey—whatever. That’s what I saw. That’s how I felt when I saw it used it on this board. But whatever! If you don’t agree, that’s just fine. Just like my friend in her ugly pants, I told her what I saw, and what other people saw, and she didn’t agree. Fine. Fine. How much energy do you think I was going to spend telling her that she looked horrible in her pants, after she argued with me? Not that much, I can tell you.

Of course, if she were to keep saying how great she looked in her pants, or kept bringing up how everyone was wrong when they said she looked horrible on the pants, it might be hard to keep quiet. But I’d certainly try.

But in reality, both sides sinned, and we might as easily play up the difference to the fact that Republicans were more organized at their perpetual mock outrage at Democratic sins than Democrats were at their perpetual mock outrage. But again: what’s the lesson here?

That it’s unfair? Yes, it is. So find something that works. I’m not sure that same old, same old, (or pumping up the volume of same old, same old) will work, but if you think it will, then go for it! If you think changing the tactic to something else, go for it! Whatever! Who am I to disagree?

If it wasn’t for this noise machine on the right, do you really think the right would have won BIGGER, because they sinned less and turned less people off? Or that, if not for the same on the left, the left would have won? I honestly just don’t see how that follows: it seems equally likely that the opposite could have happened. And yet that is precisely what you are arguing, acting as if you were pointing out some deep insight into politics.

No, I’m just trying to tell you that the pants look like crap on you. Maybe it’s unfair that you’re held to a different standard, maybe I’m oversimplifying it, maybe I don’t understand that the pants really don’t look any worse than anyone else’s pants. WHATEVER. If you don’t think it’s relevant, then that’s just fine! How is it hurting me if my friend goes out wearing pants that look like crap on her, as long as she’s okay with it? It isn’t.

Again, you are being dishonest about what I am saying.

No, I’m just not grasping the intricacies of what you’re saying. “Lightweight,” remember?

I am not saying that it’s not a problem, I am saying that this issue is less of a moral absolute than a tactical choice. Nevermind, of course, that I think that Democrats will get accused of having problems with “tone” whether there is anything to it or not (damned if we do, damned if we don’t).

Yes, it’s unfair. But it still is what it is.

The issue is that Republicans wear shit on their pants too, and the whole shit on the pants seems to be politics as usual, not something that we can take some great lesson away from about how Democrats can simply get rid of it and all will be forgiven and they’ll win again. It’s just as equally likely that Republicans would win even bigger, for all we know. And the point is: you don’t know.

So do whatever you feel is the best. It’s fiiinnnnnnne. Really. And oh, by the way, those pants look fabulous on you.

[RedFury]

@duffer

I’m curious about the sentiments of others whom have led powerful nations. What do you beleive Stalin would have said about this?

If your referring to the original quote and not the disclaimer you’re responding to, sure. That’s just [part of] the point. The other, that it is up to citizens themselves not to fall prey to such tactics.

Surely not a novel concept to you, right?

One of the great attractions of patriotism – it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what’s more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous – Aldous Leonard Huxley

@Shodan

As I recall, december was banned for misattributing a quote (among other things).

If you’re accusing or warning me of a banable offense, skip through the chase, don’t play junior mod, and go straight to the powers that be. I’m a big boy, I can handle whatever they decide.

That particular quote has been floating around the Internet since prior to the invasion. I happened to like what it said and saved it to file. Sometime later I became aware that it was falsely attributed but I never edited the file. I was reminded of same while composing my post and simply C&P’d from my files. Realized the attribution error as soon as I posted and immediately proceeded to write a disclaimer.

Would that some of you wingnut fucks – december included – were half as honest as I. Might want to look up the reason for Chompky’s departure from here. A poster I shared many views with.

Jeers,

~Red

[Apos]

@yosemite

And when it doesn’t work, do you think there’s a possibility that some dynamics might be different? (Like, the type of nastiness, the methods used, the personalities most visible that were using it?) That’s a case that I can’t make cogently myself, but I suspect that it might be the case. Will it be considered?:: throws up hands :: Whatever. You might be right. Being even nastier next time might just be the ticket for you. You know what’s best. You go for it.

Why are being such a condescending dickhead? While I maybe shouldn’t have started out by calling your analysis disingenuous, but geez.

Well, I hadn’t really thought of it that way. I thought it was, “You lost because this thing didn’t WORK for you.” Whatever it was, it wasn’t WORKING. If it doesn’t work, you don’t keep doing it. But hey—whatever. That’s what I saw. That’s how I felt when I saw it used it on this board. But whatever! If you don’t agree, that’s just fine. Just like my friend in her ugly pants, I told her what I saw, and what other people saw, and she didn’t agree. Fine. Fine. How much energy do you think I was going to spend telling her that she looked horrible in her pants, after she argued with me? Not that much, I can tell you.

The problem is that the analougy doesn’t hold. For all we know, she might not have had ENOUGH shit on her pants. Your point seems to be that you don’t like shrillness, and lots of people don’t like shrillness. But the problem is: so what? Would less have made any difference? If Democrats were less shrill than normal would it have helped? Would anyone have even noticed?

[elucidator]

Well, calm and reasonable, totally lacking in shrillitude. Like, for instance, Zell Millers speech at the Convention…

[yosemite]

@Apos

Why are being such a condescending dickhead?

I apologize. Seriously, I don’t want it to seem like I was doing that. I get frustrated and sarcastic when I can’t seem to get my views across, or they seem to get side-tracked, etc.

While I maybe shouldn’t have started out by calling your analysis disingenuous, but geez.

No, you shouldn’t have. I get lost and confused far more frequently than I get disingenuous.

The problem is that the analougy doesn’t hold. For all we know, she might not have had ENOUGH shit on her pants.

It wasn’t shit, it looked like shit—meaning, the pants were very unflattering. They were too tight. There was no possibility that wearing them tighter would be an improvement.

Sometimes you just go too far, you know? Going even farther really isn’t going to improve matters.

Your point seems to be that you don’t like shrillness, and lots of people don’t like shrillness. But the problem is: so what? Would less have made any difference?

It seems like it certainly couldn’t hurt. If you read other threads on this subject they have more insights into why it wouldn’t hurt. One thread (forget which one) had Bricker (I think it was Bricker) saying that the difference was that the Right targeted their negativity at the Left, while the Left targeted their negativity at the Center. That may have been the difference in “dynamics” that I was alluding to before, and perhaps there is some merit in that theory. I self-identify as the “Center” (centrist, moderate most of the time, etc. etc.) and I sure felt it. But, (and I don’t mean this condescendingly), whatever. Do whatever you think is best. I was trying to share my perspective because I thought it could help. Like, “Hey, everyone is laughing behind your back because they think you look terrible in those pants.” Make of it what you will. If you think you look great in the mirror, and you don’t think what I’ve told you has significance or merit, then that really is all that counts, isn’t it?

Democrats were less shrill than normal would it have helped? Would anyone have even noticed?

Yeah. I think so. Democrats seemed far more shrill this election than last election. I noticed. I noticed that it was much worse, and I didn’t like it. It was different in a bad way.

Once again (and I don’t mean this in a mean way), if you don’t think my perspective has merit, that’s fine. Just like I felt obliged to tell my friend that people thought she looked horrible in her pants, I’ve told you how I feel. My friend didn’t want to hear it, she kept wearing her pants, and, that’s fine. She couldn’t claim that she wasn’t told. She knows what is best for her, and it’s her choice. Perhaps another circle of people thought the pants looked great on her. Whatever.

If there were negative consequences to her choice (to wear ill-fitting pants), they hurt her and not me, so why should I care all that much either way? She knew what she wanted to do.

[Scylla]

@elucidator

I find this a bit confusing. You trusted Kerry? The same Kerry that you excoriated on these Boards as a liar and a traitor? Is that the Kerry you are talking about? One might be confused at such an extraordinary admission. Is it your usual practice to place your trust in men you have determined are liars and traitors? Did you get that from the Freepers, your source and font for all that is wise and true? “Kerry is telling the truth, we should all lend an ear to his wise counsel.”? How very odd.

Yes. I’ve remarked previously on your penchant for confusion. It’s why your special.

I ran your post through Babelfish, on the Weaselspeak to English translation. I regret the meltdown that caused, I only hope the site has recovered. But before it shrunk into a singularity, I got these shards…

“My conscience has begun to trouble me, I suspect that my political opponents have a point, and that I have supported a policy that makes wormfood out of our best and brightest, for no good reason and no worthy goal. But rather than accept my own share of responsibility, I think I’ll try and blame someone else…”

No, you didn’t trust Kerry, nor did you trust Clinton. There’s thousands of people on this Board, and the number you actually fooled with that transparent bullshit could fit in your kitchen cupboard. Being you, Scylla. Just you.

Ok. That is special. Let me see if I can’t help you out. Your confused because I say I trust Kerry and Clinton and distrust Bush, when, in fact, it’s obvious to even one such as yourself that the opposite is true. Your conclusion (arrived at in a linear and monocellular fashion) is that I am lying, and that you have caught me.

You look around wildly. Where is the trainer? He should be throwing you a fish by now, shouldn’t he? You got this one right, didn’t you?

Where’s your smelt?
I’m sorry to break to you, but you got this one wrong… again. My five year old understands the concept of irony. Why don’t you? If I say something diametrically opposed to what she knows my real feelings are she understands that I am being ironic. It’s a technique that can be used to convey a special emphasis.

You’ve been whooshed, Dopey.

[Scylla]

@RedFury

If that’s what you got out of my post, you can certainly strike the third of those adjectives off the list. And I am beginning to suspect the others don’t apply either, for strong, secure individuals, don’t tend to act like pompous blowhards on an Internet board.

What I actually get from your post is that you called me a “sick fuck” based on the opinions I have demonstrated in this thread.

I asked you (politely, mind you) what exactly these opinions were of mine and could you quote them, so I could see what had caused your ire.

Instead of doing so, what you did was gibber about me being a hunter, running marathons, being handsome, having a great body, being intelligent… and this is what pissed you off (meaning I guess, that you are none of these things yourself.)

Now while my qualities are fascinating to discuss, they’re not what I asked you. You don’t seem to be able to answer the actual question.

“A-ha!” I conclude. Another member of the Idiotic Liberal Hate Squad.
Now there’s a funny thing about the Idiotic Liberal Hate Squad. There’s an awful lot of you. You use no logic. For you, ignorance is an argument (look for example how Elucidator begins his logical assaults with “I’m confused.” all the time. You guys think if we can’t make you understand, then you’ve won. You’re fighting to stay stupid.

Now lest yo think I’m being partisan, there is a Conservative Hate Squad as well. For the most part, they are smart and quiet and evil, while you are loud and stupid, and not up to the moral concept. What you lack in competance though, you make up in numbers.

Anyway, it’s not all bad news. Here’s a story that no doubt will make your heart sing and your dick throb: Carnage in Falluja.
Enjoy.

**

Thank you. I do. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. This is The Liberal Hate Squad’s attempt at a moral conundrum. Rather than think or talk or ask a question you assume I am turned on by violence and pain. This is apparently some kind of attempt at an insult.

What you fail to understand is that making such a claim as an insult without anything to back it up, makes you looks stupid. It insults your self.

More importantly, attempting to use death and suffering to make some self-serving political point is disrespectful to those who are suffering and dying.

You are using them cheaply, and it makes you vile and contemptible to do so.

[Scylla]

@World Eater

And you’re so…special because you keep forgetting that Clinton didn’t start a war over it.

Actually, he did. He just didn’t finish it.

[elucidator]

OK, I’ll be Dopey. You be Grumpy. Stoid can be Snow White.

But, point of fact: you have, in truth, referred to statements by Clinton and Kerry, regarding WMD as if they somehow supported a case for regarding Bush’s contentions as justifiable. Were you joking then, as well? One might, I suppose, pore over your posts with Talmudic intensity, seeking to plumb the depths of your thought. For myself, I’d prefer to try to tease out the deep implications of “See Spot Run. Run, Spot, Run”.

I don’t know if this sort of droll irony is your metier. You should probably stick to domestic comedy, Scylla as Dagwood. You’re actually downright funny when not hag-ridden by your ego. Then you’re about as funny as a positive biopsy.

[Shodan]

@Scylla

Actually, he did. He just didn’t finish it.

I think the definition of what is immoral changed.

It now appears that it was immoral that Bush invaded, not simply that he took military action.

In other words, the fact that Bush accomplished something means that it was immoral. Not that it was based on lies, or Clinton would have been condemned in the same terms as Bush, nor that Iraq is actually a sovereign nation, or the rest of the liberal doublespeak. Bush succeeded, and that makes it an immoral action.

And, if he had simply killed a bunch of Iraqis and stopped, the whole liberal contingent would have been applauding his actions.

Psych!
Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

@Scylla

Actually, he did. He just didn’t finish it.

This one isn’t over either. Not by a long shot.

[elucidator]

@Shodan

…In other words, the fact that Bush accomplished something means that it was immoral. Not that it was based on lies, or Clinton would have been condemned in the same terms as Bush, nor that Iraq is actually a sovereign nation, or the rest of the liberal doublespeak. Bush succeeded, and that makes it an immoral action.

No, Shoddy. Its the corpses. Piles and piles of corpses. We know there’s about a thousand of our own. Do you know how many innocent Iraqis are dead for this adventure? You don’t, of course, because nobody does. Somewhere north of 10,000, hopefully south of 100,000. So far, this is about the only thing you can factually claim as “success”.

…And, if he had simply killed a bunch of Iraqis and stopped, the whole liberal contingent would have been applauding his actions…

Do you actually know any liberals? Some basis for this entirely groundless slander, dropped with all the calm assurance of emptying your colostomy bag into the punch bowl? You don’t have a clue, do you?

[Scylla]

@elucidator

But, point of fact: you have, in truth, referred to statements by Clinton and Kerry, regarding WMD as if they somehow supported a case for regarding Bush’s contentions as justifiable. Were you joking then, as well?

Every now and then you catch me off guard. Is he really this stupid? If he is, it’s not very nice of me to make fun of you.

So, without any irony.
Yes. I did mention these things before. They are true. No. I was not being ironic. The ironic part was when I said I believed them, but didn’t beleive Bush

Jesus Christ, man.

One might, I suppose, pore over your posts with Talmudic intensity, seeking to plumb the depths of your thought. For myself, I’d prefer to try to tease out the deep implications of “See Spot Run. Run, Spot, Run”.

It would probably be more at your level, I’m afraid.

I don’t know if this sort of droll irony is your metier. You should probably stick to domestic comedy, Scylla as Dagwood. You’re actually downright funny when not hag-ridden by your ego. Then you’re about as funny as a positive biopsy.

Maybe. It’s always been frustrating trying to communicate with you. I always figured you were being difficult and dishonest.

Maybe you just really are stupid.

[elucidator]

@Scylla

…Maybe. It’s always been frustrating trying to communicate with you. I always figured you were being difficult and dishonest…

Ever consider the possibility that I’m telling you the truth?

…Maybe you just really are stupid.

C’mon. You know better than that.

[pantom]

Random, y’all have already abundantly demonstrated that sweet reason gets you nowhere with you guys. No, I’m not interested in arguing with y’all anymore, I’m not interested in what you have to say, because it’s based on ignorance, prejudice, and bloodlust. I don’t care if you don’t like that I think that; I don’t give you guys any thought at all anymore.
I’m not alone; this is from today’s Financial Times, which at this point is sounding like some left-wing rag. Not surprising, since what y’all have elected is way off on the right:

from Europe Must Grow Up If It Wants to be Taken Seriously, by Martin Wolf:

These US elections were an earthquake. The American people have done far more than re-elect an Administration that is as reckless as it is radical. They have also given the same party secure control over the Congress. Republicans will now try to secure a Supreme Court of much the same complexion. Should they succeed, rightwing populism will animate all three branches of American government.
Contemporary Republicans are not conservatives. On the contrary, theirs is a revolutionary movement aimed at overthrowing much of the post-second-world-war order at home and abroad.

He doesn’t say the word fascist because he’s writing for a family newspaper. He instead substitutes radical. I do, because I’m not.
Just for context, in another age, say four years ago, Wolf would hardly be considered sympathetic to anyone left-wing. Actually, as of today he isn’t. He just sounds like it because of what we’ve elected here in the US.
I really don’t care whether you acknowledge this or not. You and your mates belong on the margins, and you’ll be there again before long. Enjoy this little interregnum while you can; evil has its day from time to time, but it never lasts.

[RedFury]

Just a brief note to thank pantom for his timely post. I was about to write something in a similar vein in reponse to Scylla’s latest pablum. Take away the smugness, the gloating, the endless self-promotion, and all you’re left with is the same simplistic, binary ideology present at the core of all True Believers. When you get right down to it, one of the few times DimSon (the new Churchill to hear them tell it) was actually telling the truth was when he said: ‘With us or against us.’

Fair enough. To hell with dialogue. Reality has always found a way to come crashing down on those who insists on ignoring it.

Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a heck of a bumpy ride.