To my fellow lefties

The BBQ Pit
1

I very rarely participate in political discussions on these boards, mainly because they tend to be US-centric and I have neither the knowledge nor, frankly, the interest to go up against some of the well-informed people we have here (and as an aside, I’m impressed by many of you). Therefore, you probably won’t know much about my political leanings, so let me just assure you that I’m pretty much as far to the left as you can imagine. No, farther than that. Yeah, that’s about right. I’m just saying this so that this post won’t be construed as coming from a Bushist. I hate the guy with a passion, I think he’s dangerous, a fool, a plain old asshole, and an absolutely horrible President. If I were ever to talk to him, I doubt we’d agree on anything more complex than “usually, it’s not a great idea to kill people”.

I do read political discussions, though, and I have to tell you something: they’re embarrassing. This thread is the latest example. Started for a perfectly valid reason, it soon turned out that the directive in question didn’t at all say what it first seemed to say. I can see this, and I very much doubt that you honestly can’t. The correct thing to do would have been to post “Whoops”, with an optional addition of “but you’ll forgive me for thinking that asshole would do something like that”. Since almost everybody on the boards, even people who supported and defended and voted for Bush in the past, now agrees that the guy sucks big donkey balls, we could just nod our heads and move on.

But no. Instead you keep going, distorting what the directive says, acting like it’s something other than it is. You change the subject to something different, and when called on that and asked for cites, you dodge and change again. And, seriously, look like idiots. I’m embarrassed by this, and I’m just a guy on the sidelines.

Couldn’t we try honesty for a while? You’re now in a situation where almost everybody agrees with you on Bush, even people on the other side of the political spectrum, and what you’re doing with it is pushing it farther than you have any reason (or possibility, really) to do. There is plenty of real things to criticize and attack him for, so why make all this shit up? And why refuse to acknowledge when you go off half-baked? Have you really not noticed that “I was wrong” does bring in a whole lot more respect than dodging and refusing?

Maybe, we could have a political discussion that doesn’t turn into name-calling, shit-slinging and general pointlessness. I know it’s possible, I remember a few… from way back.

I doubt this post will have any effect, but I felt I had to give it a go anyway. Bracing myself for the (sadly) inevitable shitstorm.

2

Pfft, flagrant false advertising.

Lefties = left-handed people

3

Priceguy, I bet I’m left of you on social issues, and as the only one I know of here who calls Bush a tyrant, I raise a toast to you, sir. […tink!..] If what you’re trying to express were to spread all throughout the Democratic faithful, they would actually avoid shooting themselves in the foot and giving the Republicans a re-entry point for 2008.

4

There are some pretty odd posts by some of the lefties in that thread. Crap like that makes dealing with the real transgressions of the Republicans more difficult.

5

Priceguy, you are basing your recommendation on the notion that Bush-hatred on the SDMB is rationally based. Much of it is not.

That was the basis for the OP in the thread to which you linked. An irrational Bush-hater started a thread, and the rest of the irrational Bush-haters chimed in. They all agreed that the notion of the OP was perfectly rational.

To admit that it was not, would be to admit that they were agreeing with an irrational notion for irrational reasons. And then, they would be forced (if they were honest people - by and large they are not) to examine the rest of the reasons they hate Bush, and accept the fact that some of those reasons are irrational.

And then, a good third of what they have been posting is revealed as nonsense.

Look, there are rational reasons (I suppose) to hate Bush. But those are not the reasons at the base of much of the Bush-hatred on the SDMB. Most of the irrational ones hated Bush the instant they saw that he was elected, and a Republican.

It’s the McCain effect. In theory, some of the Usual Suspects can accept the notion that McCain, although a Republican, would be an acceptable President. The closer he gets to actual election to the White House, the less acceptable he becomes, until he actually enters the Oval Office. At which point, the barrage would be triggered of “I thought McCain was OK until he got into bed with all those nasty Republican voters” and “I thought Bush was bad, but this guy is even worse” that will be the reaction to any Republican who gets elected.

There is a reason it is called knee-jerk liberalism. Many, not all, liberals, decide first, and then look around for reasons to justify that decision later. Certainly it happens with conservatives as well. Just not as much - not nearly as much - on the SDMB.

Regards,
Shodan

6

Thank heavens we have the peerless example of friend Shodan, who’s even handed and unbiased viewpoint is the stuff of legend! A tighty righty’s tighty righty, he could crush a walnut with his rectum! If only we lefties could follow his example of fearless fellation of The Leader, why, unanimity would spring a borning, and we could all march in happy unison, under the benevolent gaze of the Chosen One. Whenever he posts, he makes me happy that I live in Minnesota, with the Canadian border just a few hours away.

Ah, Shodan, what would we do without you?

But to the matter at hand…yes, regretably, the temperature is rising, and civility is hard to come by. These are some more of the times that try men’s souls. But these issues are mortally important, people are dying, our people are dying! No, I don’t like nasty knife fights, but I’d damn sure rather have a nasty knife fight than get shivved in back.

These people bullshitted us into a needless and brutal war. They have no claims, none whatsoever, to our tolerance and civility. Contempt is too good for them.

7

Based on this pitting, I read through the thread in question. elucidator, it’s not about “tolerance and civility,” it’s about the fact that the directive didn’t say what BrainGlutton’s cite claimed it did. Although this fact was pointed out over and over, certain posters still insisted on using the directive as an example that the president is attempting some sort of dictatorial coup of the government. You can hate the president and his administration all you want, but if you are going to argue the point, it’s smart to use examples that actually support what you are trying to argue, or it does make you seem a little hysterical.

8

I dunno. elucidator can be amusing, but hysterical?

9

Yes, indeed, I fear Sarahs previously high regard for me is besmirched. Alas. I’ll throw some water on myself…oh, great, now I’m wet! I’m hysterical, and I’m wet…

10

No, no, Sarahfeena.

Read Elucidator’s last post.

See, the Republicans are evil nasty liars. And the Democrats need to become more like them. Karl Rove’s tactics have pushed Bush’s approval ratings to the stratosphere, so there’s no sense in presenting an alternative to the Republicans, since corruption, lying, and cheating have been so successful. No, it’s clear that with the poll numbers the Republicans are getting right now, the only thing to do is join them down there in the sewer, it’s the only way we’ll win. Against the power of Rove there can be no victory. We must join with him, Sarahfeena. We must join with Rove. It would be wise, my friend.

11

Better still, let me ask the question, Sarah, m’dear. Do you trust them? The Bushiviks, I mean, do you trust them? Have they proven themselves to be worthy of trust, the kind of people you can cut some slack, because you are assured they are too ethical and upstanding to take advantage of it? Do you?

12

My personal trust for them is irrelevant to what I said to you. My point is that if you want to show that they are untrustworthy, fine…go for it. But if you want to be successful in convincing people, the directive in question is NOT a good way to do it. Just some friendly advice. The point isn’t whether or not Bush would take the opportunity to be a dictator, the point is that this directive would be a pretty ineffective way to go about it…seeing as how it never says he would take control of all 3 branches of government, as BrainGlutton’s cite claimed.

And don’t “m’dear” me, or you really will lose the regard I have for you.

13

This is why this phenomenon pisses me off so much. People, you’re providing the ammunition for the above. The SDMB wasn’t around for Reagan or the first Bush, but I have a hard time thinking the level of vitriol and the pure unadulterated hatred would have been anywhere near the same as it is now. But because of this behaviour, Shodan can say stuff like that. There are reasons to hate Bush, so let’s stick to those.

That’s not what this is about. Sure, I would like to see tolerance and civility, but what I would like to see even more is the people I agree with act like rational human beings.

14

Fine. But do you?

15

Again, irrelevant. I will say this…any mistrust I have for them probably does not extend to being fearful that they will actually try to take over the government and cancel elections.

16

See this post.

17

Case in point: it is strongly stated that the directives in question do not, in and of themselves, permit the Forces of Darkness to seize control. All well and good. But does it deny such? Can it be willfully misinterpreted? Do you trust them?
Remember, if you will, how the military authorization for Iraq was sold to us, how it was designed to strengthen the Pres’ hand in negotiation, they even stood there and swore up and down that it was intended to prevent war, by furthering negotiation. Now, I didn’t believe that was true, and I said so. I am confident that intervening time has proven me right: they never intended anything but war.

So, I ask, did you believe them then? Do you still? And if so, is there any reason on God’s Green Earth why?

18

Priceguy, I think you made a really great point. I agree completely.

19

Not really. A matter of trust. You say, well, it doesn’t actually say that Bush takes over the government, he simply “coordinates”. And you* trust* that such is good enough, you trust that he will not exceed his authority (as he has) or sell us a line of buttwhistle (as he has) or play fast and loose with the truth (as he has).

Why? Why are we wrong to mistrust someone who has lied to us repeatedly, and abundantly, and villainously?

20

I’d love to see the answer to those questions, and the debate continued based on that. I’m even holding out hope that it will happen.