Self-justifying poppycock. Arguments here stand or fall on their own merits, not by majority vote. If the arguments consistently brought forth by one faction fall disproportionately often, as they do tend to do here in this bastion of ignorance-fighting, how is that anybody else’s fault?
I don’t lie about my location, either, even if I don’t post my street address. And the last time I read any of the alternative papers that Cecil’s column runs in was before it went online.
That’s funny too.
I don’t think “message board” is high on their list for entertainment or fostering politics.
Put that on the list, Comrade Elvis! Let us be sure that, come the Revolution, running dog jackals of the ruling class are afforded plenty of time to fester politics. Notify the cadres at the Jane Fonda Political Re-education Aerobics Camp to cut back on the self-criticism sessions, afford a bit more time for other pursuits.
Yours in Revolution,
E.
Well, the board started with fans of the Straight Dope column. From there, it grew by word of mouth, I’ll theorize, to places not reached by the original newspapers. Since the board was somewhat liberal at the outset, it probably attracted other liberals. Perfectly natural.
To quote John O’Sullivan’s theory, an organization that is not explicitly right-wing will become left-wing over time. This organization was starting out with a left-wing bent. I think this may have been reinforced over time. Surely it has hardened in the time I’ve been here, and more goodhearted conservatives have left in disgust at the overheated rhetoric.
People who have been here longer than I have been can evaluate our respective theories. I think mine has the ring of truth to it, though.
I do well enough to be considered *part * of the ruling class, El Ucidator. But I’m one who recognizes that the facts are what they are and not necessarily what I’d like them to be, and I’m one who recognizes that we’re all in this boat together.
I’m no revolutionary; I just see We the People as the board of directors of USA Inc., we’re giving our CEO his quadrennial performance review, and it looks like we’re going to have to fire him for incurable incompetence and insubordination.
And now, the blowback…
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6141122
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897622/
“No, Zell, don’t be silly! They’re not shouting “Unclean! Unclean!”. Its “Uncle Lean”, they’re remarking on your trim and svelte physique. Now, if you would just wear this nice bell, so that we can hear you coming and rush to greet you…”
Gotta love a post that begins by accusing me of a temper tantrum, and ends with insults. In GD.
Could be the ring of truth. Could be the knell of doom. Tomato, tomato.
But credit where due, you are the first to even make the effort.
Only amongst my Hispanic companeros, but more commonly known as El Guapo. Amongst my adopted tribe, the Fukahwee, I am called Dances with Vulvas. “Sir” will do nicely, as well. “Tree Top” is also common, though I blush to admit the circumstances…
RTFirefly
[Moderator Hat ON]
RT, if you want to tell anyone to stick anything anywhere, do it in the Pit. NOT here.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
As in “Where in the?”
Grey man right. Still have forked tongue. Wife like that?
Si, errr, I mean NO!
Well, remember, the Doper community is not a good representative sample of the general population. We are all people who are familiar with Cecil’s column – which, in the U.S., is published mainly in alternative weekly tabloids in major metro areas. These tabs have a progressive political slant and they are distributed in places where the people are generally more liberal than those in rural areas.
But, yeah, it’s also because liberals are smarter. 
Let’s not take Zell too seriously or worry too much about it. Those who admire him weren’t going to vote for Kerry anyway. Let’s just enjoy the humor of the situation, take a timeout and enjoy this from whitehouse.org.
So they found a turncoat to spout some bile. Big deal. OK, so the Dems had their convention, the Pubs had theirs, now let’s get to the debates.
Oh . . . that’s already been covered . . . my bad.
Just proves how obvious that conclusion is, BrainGlutton.
That’s true to some extent, but there is something more to it as well.
For years, the liberals suffered agonies of frustration because Reagan won his elections. For eight long years, and then again when Bush Sr. went in on Reagan’s coattails, they kept trying and trying to do pretty much what they are doing now - piling on and piling on, and agreeing with each other in loud voices that the economy was not doing better, that you couldn’t say those things about the USSR, that Reagan was an irresponsible cowboy who was going to start World War III, that everything was ghastly and getting worse. And none of it worked. People heard their arguments, looked around them, and voted for Reagan.
And then, finally, along came Clinton. Finally, a Democrat who could get re-elected. OK, he was a sleazeball, but they were willing to overlook that. Although the cognitive dissonance involved in pretending sexual harassment and lying under oath were, well, different when a Democrat is involved took something out of the more honest ones. And when the Republicans were not willing to overlook it, they could convince themselves that it was all just partisanship.
But that is where the difficulty came in. They had to convince themselves that anyone who refused to accept their spin on the various Clinton scandals must be a bad person. Because, really, you can’t responsibly argue that lying is bad for Republicans but OK for Clinton, or that even the accusation of sexual harassment is disqualifying for Thomas but a forgiveable foible for Clinton. So it had to be something else. It had to, or they would lose all their self-respect. And then came the 2000 elections.
They were already entirely sure that the White House was theirs by right. And, that anyone who refused to accept this must be a slimeball. And then they lost. And, having convinced themselves that their political opponents are disgusting scum, they cast around in desperation for an explanation of how they, the embodiment of all that is right and virtuous in American politics, could possibly have been defeated, fairly and squarely. And so we got the various “The Republicans cheated! The ballots were rigged! The Supreme Court is fixed! SUE SOMEBODY!” arguments.
And now it is 2004, and the same thing is happening again. And, despite the fact that they have all repeated their best arguments in increasingly louder voices, it isn’t working. What seems to be self-evidently, obviously true is not guaranteeing them what they feel they have the right to demand. Bush is slightly ahead in the polls, and what would be a landslide victory for them if people weren’t so stupid and ignorant as not to accept whatever they claim without examination is slipping away.
And so, having convinced themselves with the only argument they have (“BushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLied…”), they have no real idea why it doesn’t automatically convince others. So they fall back on their only recourse - invective.
Miller doesn’t like Kerry. Could this possibly be based on principle? Of course not - it must be because he is a racist, evil person. Most of Kerry’s fellow swift boat commanders don’t think he would be a good President. Might this be because Kerry attacked them upon his return from Viet Nam? Of course not - it must be because they are evil liars. And so on.
It goes back to the old saw:
It is an exaggeration, as most such are, but it contains an element of truth.
And it will be especially true in the hothouse atmosphere of a leftist-dominated board like the SDMB. If you snipe at, pile on, sneer at, and Pit enough conservatives, you can drive many of them away. And then pat yourself on the back on the superior force of your arguments, if you feel so inclined. But, since those who happen on the SDMB will like be predisposed to the Left for the reasons described by Mr. Moto and others, a lot can be done to ensure that uncomfortable dissent can be kept to a minimum.
Thus the disparity. Every speaker at the RNC convention is Pitted and insulted, and it is assumed that they must be scum from the nether reaches of hell. No such corresponding series of threads on DNC speakers exists. Because anything the DNC says is self-evidently right, everything the RNC says is self-evidently wrong, and anyone who refuses to nod reverently when this is repeated must be a bad, evil, racist, lying, homophobic, dishonest, traitorous, blah blah blah until they run out of breath.
In other words, business as usual for the Usual Suspects.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, I know that you can be a reasonable poster. So I really hope that you can understand: Democrats are not pissed off because “republicans are fighting back.”
Democrats are pissed off because of the slanderous lies being blatantly told about our candidate for presidency. We are pissed off, because the President of the United States, himself, is presenting these lies directly to his constituents, and anytime we try to point it out we are immediately labeled as “Bush haters” and sometimes even traitors (rather than trying - at all - to see where we might be coming from).
Personally, yes- I am a Bush hater; but as a reasonable poster, I hope you see that I actually have reasons for my feelings toward our president. If Kerry were telling blatant lies about the president, I would be just as disgusted. I mean come on, trying to tell the american public that Kerry voted 350 times to raise taxes, or that Kerry opposed giving our troops body armor? The latter accusation is completely sickening, as a human being.
If republicans are merely attacking our “policies”, then maybe they should stop creating false policies, pinning them on the democrats, and pointing out how these (false) policies make the democrats un-american. The implication here, in case you missed it, is that “Republicans think Democrats are bad people.”
Of course, why bother addressing the democrats’ actual policies, when making things up and painting the democrats as “weak on defense” “girlie men” seems to be working just fine. :rolleyes:
LilShieste
I don’t like Bush. Could this possibly be based on principle?
I don’t like Kerry. Could this possibly be based on principle?
I don’t like Bill Clinton. Could this possibly be based on principle?
I don’t like Zell Miller. Could this possibly be based on principle?
A lot of the people participating in this thread are repulsively partisan. I won’t make many exceptions, and certainly not for you.
There are only a handful of people on the Dope who listen to the speeches rather than just noting whose name is in the caption. It’s depressing as hell.
Nope, I’m sorry. This just isn’t true.
It is not the case that Democrats are always telling the truth, or that they have demonstrated clearly that whatever Republicans say is a lie. That is simply self-serving political rhetoric.
This is a normal campaign. Kerry is not being treated any differently than any other candidate, regardless of party. Indeed, he is being treated no worse that the Democrats treated Bush - and Reagan, and Thomas, and Bork, and dozens of others.
Let’s not pretend that anything said or done in 2004 is anything besides SOP for Democrats and Republicans. This suggestion of yours that Democrats are clearly, undeniably, consistently in the right and Republicans are doing something beyond the pale is simply partisan spin.
Payback’s a bitch, I grant you.
Regards,
Shodan