I mean, seriously, how arrogant do you have to be to think that the primary reason people who don’t agree with your politics is that they just don’t understand you?!?
The evidence just doesn’t pan out. I am not denying there were some hardcore Dems on this board frothing at every single thing Bush said or did not say. But, there are an equal number of conservatives who were defending Bush with the same blind ferocity. If Gore were the president, the roles would be merely reversed…
Now, from the board on to the real world. FTR, Scylla has said he listens to Rush and is a big fan. Is that proof enough that smart intelligent conservatives are listening to Rush & co. That wasn’t my point anyway. My point is that Dems have not had the monopoly on calling the other side stupid/mean whatever. The talk radio world and conservative media entities have been out there railing against liberalism and Democrats as if they hate America. Seriously, I’m glad you think Rush & Co are demonizing polarizing idiots but can’t you agree that this exists on both sides? How can you claim that only the Dems have been doing it?
While I do agree with your larger point, I don’t think you or anyone ought to be making up your mind on what others think of Bush or Kerry.
So, you estimate there are way more demonizing vicious liberals than conservatives? Sorry, I can’t see that. In my eyes, the demonizing liberals have been picking nits and exposing their intense dislike for Bush with Bush-this and Bush-that and the demonizing conservatives have been licking every drop of Bush-shit, smearing liberals, are ten times more organized, regurgitate the talking points with amazing consistency, do the exact same thing the liberals do but only with greater effectiveness.
That’s what I see. I’m not a registered Democrat or a Republican. I’m not even a US citizen.
Note: I really find it bizarre that Rush Limbaugh calls other people smug. If he doesn’t ooze smug, who does? Al Franken?
He’s a pundit. Sometimes he’s said some good things. Some of them I’ve repeated on this board without attribution and had them well received by Liberals and Conservatives. Sometimes he’s an asshole or stupid. He’s usually interesting decompression for my lunch hour as I drive around. I don’t worship him or beleive everything he says as gospel. I think there’s a fallacy that listening to Rush pegs you as agreeing with him lockstep.
I also read lots of polical biographies and smears from both sides. I read Tour of Duty and Unfit for Command I read Hillary’s book. I read Franken’s first book.
I’ll tell you something interesting about Rush. I think he supports gay marriage. I think he’s been laying the groundwork for an argument in favor of it for some time.
Of the four biggies, Rush, Ann, AL, and Michael, I think Rush is the least demonizing in general. Nowadays he’s usually but not always pretty specific when he attack somebody and he sticks to the particular issue that he’s fighting them on. But, yeah sometimes he’s a real prick and I don’t really like or enjoy it when he goes on the “stupid liberal” tirades.
Scylla, I haven’t heard Rush recently but I have listened to him. In fact, someone at work told me that he was an entertaining pundit and that’s how I first listened to him without any preconceived notions.
I was repulsed by his never-ending tirade on how liberals have done this and done that. I didn’t find it in the least bit entertaining. I vividly remember his take on the sniper shooting near DC… with all the shit going on he said something about how liberals in Washington will now realize that one cannot negotiate with terrorists. What a smear in a post 9/11 world.
I’m sorry but I can’t listen to demagoguery like this. Good for you if you can find it entertaining and have the ability to sift through all the bullshit.
I don’t think you understand my ideas. I think you indulge in hating your opposition because it is easier than to understand them.
I made several points and asked you questions in good faith.
I honestly don’t understand how you can say that Republicans are 70-80% of your closest friends (or whatever the exact quote was) while at the same time you think that they are supporters of active hateful bigotry, sending our soldiers to the meatgrinder and all the rest of that bad stuff.
I don’t beleive you actually think that. I don’t think you would be friends with them if you did.
So, I think you’re indulging your failure to understand selectively on the internet by being a hateful prick and calling people who disagree with you names, because it’s easier than confronting the cognitive dissonance that your faced with.
I don’t think you say these things to your friends. I don’t think you call them bigots and murderers and knowing liars.
But, according to you they beleive these things and support these things that them this. So, I think you’re acting like a self-indulgent coward, because you can’t be bothered to understand the good faith and reason that leads these people (and myself) to support these ideas.
So, you act like an asshole and call me names here to make yourself feel better. You indulge yourself because there aren’t repercussions.
If you weren’t a coward you would use your discussion to gain and offer insight rather than throw insults around.
You’ve always been a bit of a stubborn prick though and unwilling to back an inch away from an unreasonable stance (George Soros is not a Democrat? Remember that?)
I said you were a coward though, not stupid. I think your cowardice is evident in your tactics. Rather than disuss an issue which may necessitate a change in stance, you would prefer to get angry and call people names. Take it away from the issue and make it personal.
You’ve used the tactic on me several times. As a matter of fact, I’ve done it to. Sometimes I’ve regretted it.
But you do it a lot, and I think it’s mean and cowardly of you to do so.
Like I said, how arrogant do you have to be?
No, I assure you there were never “an equal number” of conservatives.
First, to be clear, I am absolutely in favor of civil unions or marriages for gays. What I would like to see is two institutions, one civil (civil unions) and one religious or spiritual (marriage). (And I don’t care much about the terminology.) IMO, if the government is going to be in the business of licensing unions and extending privileges and responsibilities on that basis, then it should extend those privileges equally. Personally, I think it’s unconstitutional for the government to fail to do so. So civil unions (or civil marriage) for all. Then, if you want to get married in a church that says only left-handed six-foot-tall red-heads can marry, that’s your religious belief and none o’ my business. Or the government’s. I have never had anyone give me a rational (not belief-based) reason for failing to extend the marital rights to homosexuals solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. And belief-based government policies make me deeply uneasy; I am rarely in favor of them.
So when you speak of “the opposition,” in my case on this issue that would be those who do not favor marital rights for gays. And I would approach that issue as I have already said: I would remove the hot-button word “marriage” by talking about civil unions; I would focus on the lack of rational reason to fail to extend those rights equally; and I would make clear that it is not necessary for anyone to “accept” homosexuality as a moral matter in order to grant all citizens equal rights under the law. IOW, I think the religious right has successfully highjacked the issue by painting it in terms of morality and religion; I would hamstring their ability to do that by removing the debate from those realms to the fullest extent possible. And I certainly would not disrespect people by calling them bigots or retards for their stance – even if, in my secret heart of hearts, I thought it was the most bigoted, retarded stance ever taken in the history of the world.
At this point, conservatives are driving the bus. Liberals can demonize them, condemn them, and stomp off in a huff, but you know what? You’re still on the bus, and you’re going where the bus is going. To me, it isn’t an abandonment of principles to try to have some say in how it’s driven. And by suggesting that you try to do so, I’m not inviting anyone to lean over and lick my Republican boots. I’m just pointing out that calling us all a bunch of deluded idiots who were fed a pack of lies – that doesn’t seem to be working so well. So, respectfully, maybe it’s time to try something else, like listening to the other side’s point of view and engaging in constructive and respectful dialogue to try to change some minds.
But I’m just a dumbshit Republican; what do I know?
Well, in all truth I find it less of an issue when it’s not my beleifs that are being attacked. If I were more liberal, it would bother a lot more.
(and on preview to Minty)
I don’t think it’s arrogant at all, but this is getting boring. If you’re unwilling or don’t have the time for a thoughtful and substantive reply to me than why bother?
Civil unions, not marriage. Check. Good strategy.
And I suppose you would also remind people of your faith.
And show them that you are a gun owner too.
And then you would remember that these are all the same things that John Kerry did.
I swear, Scylla, you are unique! You call the guy a coward six or seven times, “asshole”, “stubborn prick”, everything but a yellow-eyed piss sucking dog and then…then!..you sniff about him failing to engage you in substantive discourse!
When they were doling out chutzpah, you must have thought they meant money!
It’s true. I am calling him names… for calling me names. I’m not going to be totally civil in the face of it. I’m also hoping for a negative reinforcement effect, like training a puppy. He says something mean to me, so I turn it back on him. It’s like training a puppy not to bite by spanking it.
Hypocritical? Sure. I guess. But I am engaging what he says, responding to his points (when he bothers to make one) and answering his issues.
He’s basically responding with one liner insults absent substance.
At least you use insults as spice to your argument most of the time, so you seem to know the difference. Minty is using them with me, in lieu of an argument.
Tell me I’m wrong.
There are different strategies for running for office and lobbying for a cause. I’m not running for office. If I were, I would be less forthcoming than I am here about views likely to piss off my constituents, and I would feel more obligated to represent their views instead of my own. Though as to your points, and only IMO: Most of America doesn’t favor either gay civil unions or gay marriage, and progress will clearly only be made in small steps on this issue; many people did not perceive Kerry to be a person of deep faith (especially evangelicals, who – wrongly – feel that faith should be worn upon one’s sleeve); and the shots of his duck hunting in hunting cammies just made him look like a big poser. (Who retreives the ducks? His valet?) So he may have tried to do the things you listed, but IMO he wasn’t particularly successful at it.
I can completely support your first paragraph. I don’t particularly want the government in my spiritual aspect of anything, because it’s a totally personal matter and doesn’t concern them anyway. So, changing ALL “marriage” to “civil unions” would be fine with me. Unfortunately, for those who are at the heart of the matter, perhaps they forsee what happened after Lincoln freed the slaves and it took an additional 100 (200? – I’m not sure which) for the emancipation to reach Texas. I can understand their concern that maybe if they conceed to something similar to what heterosexuals have but not equal, that right may be a long time coming.
However, no matter what anyone undoubtedly wants, it’ll probably be baby steps anyway. That makes me sad and eager to work harder for it to happen sooner, but I am a realist (I hope) and recognize that this, in all actuallity, WILL be fact. I so wish it weren’t, but I’m sure that my wishes aren’t prevalent in our soceity.
I apologize for using the term “opposition.” It came out much stranger than I anticipated and the only reason for me using it in the first place is because I have an absurd hang up about repeating the same phrases over and over again as I write/type. In other words, a thesaurasus is NOT my friend. 
I feel you are correct that this fight has been hijacked and your suggestions are prudent and sound. If that’s the only way to go at all, then I hope heed is taken. I fervently pray though, that despite whichever terminology is used, that it will indeed encompass the full range of equality. Without question. It’s just that many, like myself, are fearful that less won’t ever get to more. I so want to be wrong.
Sincerely, please let me know if I’ve engaged in any condescenscion, hatred or name-calling. I try really hard to be magnanimous to everyone and to walk a mile in their shoes before I even presume to have a clue about what they’re like or their life. I want to do any discourse respectfully -and- in a constructive manner, else what’s the point? I can’t abide being controlling or pushy, and I would never desire to be seen as thinking myself superior in any way. If that’s what I’m doing, or have done, just whack me upside the head and let me know in no uncertain terms. I will fix the problem and learn from my errors.
I wouldn’t ever even think that, let alone actually feeling that way. We’re all in this together. We just have to work FOR one another instead of pushing everyone else out of the way to play out our own agenda. Does that sound reasonable or insane? (And please go light on the “insane” part if it’s true… us crazy people – and I mean that literally for myself – have feelings too, even when they appear to be utter gibberish.) :o
Poor, poor Scylla. Who with such a civil keyboard told me that I oppose his politics–shared by my close friends, my colleagues, the people I read every day, and even a quite noticeable portion of the SDMB–because I just don’t understand his beliefs.
Go to hell, arrogant fuck.
I tell my friends they’re wrong. I even tell them why they’re wrong, they we talk about why I’m right and they’re wrong. You? I just point out you’re a prick.
No no no – you’ve been a delight. I would bear your children if I knew who the hell you were. At this point it’s generally obligatory to throw in some insults, this being the Pit and all, but since MINTY’s handling that end of things, I think we can forego it. 
Diogonies, I just want you to know what I am feeling at this moment:relief. And if I may build on that, let me say “thank you”.
I have derided you more than once on these boards, I will probably do so again. Frequently you seem like you’re campaigning for the office of “partisan idiot”. I have mocked you, I have insulted you and I have held you up as an object of ridicule demonstrating everything that is wrong with the ultra left. At the same time, I have noticed non-political posts you have made with admiration, particularly when the subject is religious matters. From those posts of yours I have learned a lot. Nevertheless, you have presented yourself as a crazy lunatic, hell bent on forcing your, er, unique world view on everyone regardless of facts most of the time. I had you pigeonholed in my mind, until I saw this post.
I don’t expect you to adjust who you are, or to change your beliefs, no matter how misguided I may think they are, but you have just proven yourself capable of something other than “Bush is Hitler” posts (even though you posted exactly that yesterday). Good job. I have gained a new respect for you in my mind. Please, keep it up, we can all benefit from your intelligence if you can divorce it from your partisan idiology.
Also, to Minty: Scylla seems to be trying to do the same thing that I just congratulated DtC for. He’s hasn’t been quite as strident as DtC in the past, but you seem to be unwilling to address his points. Why don’t you try to do that instead of dismissing it because it comes from Scylla?
SOB CAN’T WE JUST ALL GET ALONG???
Seriously, let’s all of us, you and me, try to discuss things rather than simply vilifying our opponents. Isn’t that the crux of “fighting ignorance”?
On this board, oh yes.
Look—I’ve never denied that there are demonizing Republicans. I daresay there are a ton of them on more right-dominated boards. But on this board, there are more demonizing Democrats. No question.
It doesn’t matter if Rush Limbaugh, etc. is smug. Doesn’t matter. The right can be whatever it is, and it doesn’t change the fact that there are demonizing liberals who are turning off many people that they hope to persuade. You want to bring people over to your side? Don’t treat them with contempt. Doesn’t matter what your opposition is doing—doesn’t matter. If they are treating their opposition with contempt, no doubt they’re turning off people too. So what does that prove? It proves that demonizing your opposition doesn’t work.
Not necessarily true, Yosemite.
The “demonizing” which took place during this election resulted in far greater Democrat voter turnout than usual.
The reason the Democrats lost was because Republicans succeeded in increasing their turnout as well, largely due to their own highly effective use of “demonizing.”
While your conclusion (demonizing doesn’t work) is one possible conclusion to draw from the data, it looks like a more logical conclusion is that demonizing works very well, and whoever is better at it will win.
I think you are letting your own personal preference (and one that I share!) against demonizing bias your argument. It is a rotten strategy - but the evidence indicates that, unfortunately, it is probably a very effective strategy.