Another map, this one via thickeye:
In the comments, Cinque H continues to call for temperate language towards the Bushvoters. He's living out there among them, so maybe it's like, don't say Big Smelly Cat when you're in a cage full of lions. I understand all that about being noble and not sinking to the level of right wing hate rhetoric, but I disagree with the analogy of the Bushvoters defending themselves being like us having to defend Clinton after Waco (and other bad things that happened from '92-'99). Barbecuing 80 Americans for their religious practices was awful, but Iraq is infinitely worse--it's simply not defensible on any level except "me dumb me see Saddam on teevee he bad man." Assuming the 59 million people aren't out and out mentally handicapped, they are morally culpable for the killing in Bush's vendetta. I'm not interested in winning them over, I'd rather see them disappear through attrition and old age (see previous post re: demographics) and keep working on the ones who didn't vote, making intellectual freedom seem fun and sexy. Also, you can't reason with the wingnuts, we have one that keeps popping up on this site repeating the same tired phrases no matter how sensitive and rational people try to be.
I am probably that wingnut... but instead of taking the "I'm not interested in winning them over, I'd rather see them disappear through attrition and old age " route, I'd rather make them feel so bad about themselves that they commit suicide.
rude pundit
There are no left wingnuts, for whatever reason. I'm referring to someone on another digitalmediatree page. You're just so mad you're head's about to pop. Which is cool, but take care. I mentioned elsewhere, those Texas state fair photos are incredible. Such a pissed-off eye. So many chronically obese people on motorized carts.
The rude pundit at his most rude was describing Dick Cheney performing the sex act on Willam Rehnquist's...well, I'd rather not say.
daily show said nyc was about 85% kerry 15% bush.
"those Texas state fair photos are incredible"
Thank you Tom! I guess I just have a lot of steam to let off.
Tom, I'm glad for this opportunity for exchange, which is awesome, even though I really ought to be spending this time working on various other projects.
Let me be clear about one thing: my argument is not about how we interact with Bushvoters. Maybe temperate language toward them is a good policy; maybe, but that's not what I'm advocating.
I am advocating a marked shift of resources: from issuing blanket screeds against 59 million people to figuring out what makes a campaign work and what makes a candidate successful. In order to do that, you first have to get past seeing people as caricatures of insanity, weirdness and evil, and instead make some genuine attempt to understand what motivates masses of people. They are in fact responding to some real thing, even if you and I don't agree with that thing. The next step is to figure out ok, well what is that thing?
My answer is that they are responding to clearly stated moral mandates. Not a set of policy agendas, but moral positions. Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and John Edwards (among others) were all perfectly willing to take moral stands. Kerry from the getgo was never so willing. I submit that that cost us the election. Not because Bushies would have been swayed by a Kerry moral argument, but because 140,000 Ohioans who decided to play pool that afternoon would have.
Let me try to get some closure here by saying--it's the pool players we're interested in; they're schlubs, but I'll try not to insult them. Flaming the Bushvoters may not be a good long term strategy to win the pool players over because it accentuates the negative. Just don't ask us not to do it now. It's still too raw. I mean, fuck these people!
Perfect... See you on the flipside!
Yeah, what Tom said. And what Bubba said too ...
The dialog here reinforces my opinions in regards to the fact that I believe this election was decided on the issue of morality from both sides. This country is divided because of the assumption, on behalf of the Conservative Religious-Right of the Republican party, that they offer the only acceptable moral authority for this nation.
The religious right bases their ideology of morality on scripture; this is an exclusive attitude. The liberal left bases their morality on the freedom and equality of diversity.
This is an inclusive attitude that favors impartiality.
The idea of morality in our society today is a civil rights issue that is at the heart of the separation of church and state. We can not afford to allow our political leaders to make policy based on the exclusive attitudes of religiously motivated dogma. All laws should be inclusive, and no majority should overrule the rights of a minority especially where religion is concerned.
The problem is that the majority (not all, but many) of “Christians” tend to think that they possess a higher moral equivalent over everyone else and that this gives them a divine right to dictate policy and law. They seem to think that their religious ideologies give them the power of righteous judgment over others and they also seem to believe it is their responsibility to impose these principles on others for the sake of “saving” them through conversion. It isn’t enough for them to simply lead by example, they want to force it down the throats of others in their attempt to convert the “sinful”. I won’t go into the multiple levels of hypocrisy that runs rampant in respect to their own double standards, but I will say, it often leaves them less than credible when standing on their soap box.
However superior they believe their intentions to be, we can not have a group of religious ideologues defining what acceptable morality is for everyone else. The religious left would deny equality, therefore they are not honorably accountable for practicing good civil liberties, and this puts them at odds with our the constitutional freedoms.
We have been fighting exclusive attitudes for a long time (racial and gender prejudices). The fact that so many Americans have chosen to exercise their religious bigotry in electing Bush is frightening. Like Mr. Moody, it makes me angry that here we are again, after all these years, having to defend a person’s rights of equality (sexual preference, pro-choice). The division of the country over issues that effect gender, race and sexuality will do nothing but corrupt this country. And it is scary.
I don’t always think anger is a bad thing. I think people should be accountable for their decisions and their actions. Simply trying to think of new stratagems for dealing with this is necessary, but it is passive. We can’t afford to be passive on this anymore, there is too much at risk. It won’t change until we get forceful, and aggression is all that the conservative right seems to understand and fear. We will not sit by and let them bring this country down without expressing our discontent. We will hold them accountable for their transgressions, for the conflicts that will erupt, and for the people who will suffer because of their prejudices, moral bigotry and blind conviction.
Let them clearly understand the rage that is now a part of the national dialog after this election. Let them see and hear that we will not put restraints on our emotions for the sake of civility while they thrust their moral censorship down our throats. We are entitled to our anger. If we intend to fight for what is fair, for the inclusion of civil liberties for everyone, then we must express our offense at their exclusive intentions and put the blame where it belongs.
Let's not forget the thousands of people who live in "Jesusland" who voted for Kerry. If I was one of them, I'd be pretty discouraged by a map like that. And those are the very people we need to support and encourage.
"We in blue states produce the vast majority of the wealth in this country and pay the most taxes, and you in the red states receive the majority of the money from those taxes while complaining about 'em. We in the blue states are the only ones who've been attacked by foreign terrorists, yet you in the red states are gung ho to fight a war in our name. We in the blue states produce the entertainment that you consume so greedily each day, while you in the red states show open disdain for us and our values. Blue state civilians are the actual victims and targets of the war on terror, while red state civilians are the ones standing behind us and yelling "Oh, yeah!? Bring it on!"" - An excerpt from the faux concession speech by Adam Felber http://www.felbers.net/mt/:
Whatever region you live in, as painful and as difficult as it may be, you must get inside the head of your political subject, learn how they think and what motivates them, and be prepared to exploit those qualities more ruthlessly than Karl Rove and with better machinery in place.
As a Canadian this map upsets me. Why are we still stuck with Alberta? Yeesh.
From Hairy Fish Nuts ...
Okay I'm a bit torn, while I always encourage anyone and everyone to move to Canada (It really is the best place in the world to live) leaving a country as cool as America to the wingnuts? Let those monkeys really turn it into Jesusland? C'mon, stay and fight, if you pussy off to Toronto then the knuckle-draggers have really won.
On the other hand you may want to beat the rush when Bush announces the Free Middle East Tour and Gun Act of 2006.
If you do decide to head north of the border avoid parts of Alberta, you may feel like you never left.
Worrying about how a campaign "works" or a "good" candidate is superfluous when the gop has determined how our votes will be gathered and counted.
Moral issues my ass, the gop lies, steals, kills, and corrupts - and noone holds them accountable.
I'm convinced this election, like last time, was stolen.
How can you win against corruption this deep and this self righteous?
|
Another map, this one via thickeye:
In the comments, Cinque H continues to call for temperate language towards the Bushvoters. He's living out there among them, so maybe it's like, don't say Big Smelly Cat when you're in a cage full of lions. I understand all that about being noble and not sinking to the level of right wing hate rhetoric, but I disagree with the analogy of the Bushvoters defending themselves being like us having to defend Clinton after Waco (and other bad things that happened from '92-'99). Barbecuing 80 Americans for their religious practices was awful, but Iraq is infinitely worse--it's simply not defensible on any level except "me dumb me see Saddam on teevee he bad man." Assuming the 59 million people aren't out and out mentally handicapped, they are morally culpable for the killing in Bush's vendetta. I'm not interested in winning them over, I'd rather see them disappear through attrition and old age (see previous post re: demographics) and keep working on the ones who didn't vote, making intellectual freedom seem fun and sexy. Also, you can't reason with the wingnuts, we have one that keeps popping up on this site repeating the same tired phrases no matter how sensitive and rational people try to be.
- tom moody 11-05-2004 6:04 am
I am probably that wingnut... but instead of taking the "I'm not interested in winning them over, I'd rather see them disappear through attrition and old age " route, I'd rather make them feel so bad about themselves that they commit suicide.
- Abraham Kalashnikov (guest) 11-05-2004 6:30 am
rude pundit
- dave 11-05-2004 7:02 am
There are no left wingnuts, for whatever reason. I'm referring to someone on another digitalmediatree page. You're just so mad you're head's about to pop. Which is cool, but take care. I mentioned elsewhere, those Texas state fair photos are incredible. Such a pissed-off eye. So many chronically obese people on motorized carts.
- tom moody 11-05-2004 7:05 am
The rude pundit at his most rude was describing Dick Cheney performing the sex act on Willam Rehnquist's...well, I'd rather not say.
- tom moody 11-05-2004 7:14 am
daily show said nyc was about 85% kerry 15% bush.
- dave 11-05-2004 7:35 am
"those Texas state fair photos are incredible"
Thank you Tom! I guess I just have a lot of steam to let off.
- Abraham Kalashnikov (guest) 11-05-2004 7:40 am
Tom, I'm glad for this opportunity for exchange, which is awesome, even though I really ought to be spending this time working on various other projects.
Let me be clear about one thing: my argument is not about how we interact with Bushvoters. Maybe temperate language toward them is a good policy; maybe, but that's not what I'm advocating.
I am advocating a marked shift of resources: from issuing blanket screeds against 59 million people to figuring out what makes a campaign work and what makes a candidate successful. In order to do that, you first have to get past seeing people as caricatures of insanity, weirdness and evil, and instead make some genuine attempt to understand what motivates masses of people. They are in fact responding to some real thing, even if you and I don't agree with that thing. The next step is to figure out ok, well what is that thing?
My answer is that they are responding to clearly stated moral mandates. Not a set of policy agendas, but moral positions. Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and John Edwards (among others) were all perfectly willing to take moral stands. Kerry from the getgo was never so willing. I submit that that cost us the election. Not because Bushies would have been swayed by a Kerry moral argument, but because 140,000 Ohioans who decided to play pool that afternoon would have.
- Cinque H. 11-05-2004 8:09 am
Let me try to get some closure here by saying--it's the pool players we're interested in; they're schlubs, but I'll try not to insult them. Flaming the Bushvoters may not be a good long term strategy to win the pool players over because it accentuates the negative. Just don't ask us not to do it now. It's still too raw. I mean, fuck these people!
- tom moody 11-05-2004 8:33 am
Perfect... See you on the flipside!
- Cinque H. 11-05-2004 8:44 am
Yeah, what Tom said. And what Bubba said too ...
- mark 11-05-2004 12:04 pm
The dialog here reinforces my opinions in regards to the fact that I believe this election was decided on the issue of morality from both sides. This country is divided because of the assumption, on behalf of the Conservative Religious-Right of the Republican party, that they offer the only acceptable moral authority for this nation.
The religious right bases their ideology of morality on scripture; this is an exclusive attitude. The liberal left bases their morality on the freedom and equality of diversity.
This is an inclusive attitude that favors impartiality.
The idea of morality in our society today is a civil rights issue that is at the heart of the separation of church and state. We can not afford to allow our political leaders to make policy based on the exclusive attitudes of religiously motivated dogma. All laws should be inclusive, and no majority should overrule the rights of a minority especially where religion is concerned.
The problem is that the majority (not all, but many) of “Christians” tend to think that they possess a higher moral equivalent over everyone else and that this gives them a divine right to dictate policy and law. They seem to think that their religious ideologies give them the power of righteous judgment over others and they also seem to believe it is their responsibility to impose these principles on others for the sake of “saving” them through conversion. It isn’t enough for them to simply lead by example, they want to force it down the throats of others in their attempt to convert the “sinful”. I won’t go into the multiple levels of hypocrisy that runs rampant in respect to their own double standards, but I will say, it often leaves them less than credible when standing on their soap box.
However superior they believe their intentions to be, we can not have a group of religious ideologues defining what acceptable morality is for everyone else. The religious left would deny equality, therefore they are not honorably accountable for practicing good civil liberties, and this puts them at odds with our the constitutional freedoms.
We have been fighting exclusive attitudes for a long time (racial and gender prejudices). The fact that so many Americans have chosen to exercise their religious bigotry in electing Bush is frightening. Like Mr. Moody, it makes me angry that here we are again, after all these years, having to defend a person’s rights of equality (sexual preference, pro-choice). The division of the country over issues that effect gender, race and sexuality will do nothing but corrupt this country. And it is scary.
I don’t always think anger is a bad thing. I think people should be accountable for their decisions and their actions. Simply trying to think of new stratagems for dealing with this is necessary, but it is passive. We can’t afford to be passive on this anymore, there is too much at risk. It won’t change until we get forceful, and aggression is all that the conservative right seems to understand and fear. We will not sit by and let them bring this country down without expressing our discontent. We will hold them accountable for their transgressions, for the conflicts that will erupt, and for the people who will suffer because of their prejudices, moral bigotry and blind conviction.
Let them clearly understand the rage that is now a part of the national dialog after this election. Let them see and hear that we will not put restraints on our emotions for the sake of civility while they thrust their moral censorship down our throats. We are entitled to our anger. If we intend to fight for what is fair, for the inclusion of civil liberties for everyone, then we must express our offense at their exclusive intentions and put the blame where it belongs.
- Deirdre (guest) 11-05-2004 6:35 pm
Let's not forget the thousands of people who live in "Jesusland" who voted for Kerry. If I was one of them, I'd be pretty discouraged by a map like that. And those are the very people we need to support and encourage.
- anonymous (guest) 11-05-2004 6:39 pm
"We in blue states produce the vast majority of the wealth in this country and pay the most taxes, and you in the red states receive the majority of the money from those taxes while complaining about 'em. We in the blue states are the only ones who've been attacked by foreign terrorists, yet you in the red states are gung ho to fight a war in our name. We in the blue states produce the entertainment that you consume so greedily each day, while you in the red states show open disdain for us and our values. Blue state civilians are the actual victims and targets of the war on terror, while red state civilians are the ones standing behind us and yelling "Oh, yeah!? Bring it on!"" - An excerpt from the faux concession speech by Adam Felber http://www.felbers.net/mt/:
Whatever region you live in, as painful and as difficult as it may be, you must get inside the head of your political subject, learn how they think and what motivates them, and be prepared to exploit those qualities more ruthlessly than Karl Rove and with better machinery in place.
- anonymous (guest) 11-05-2004 7:15 pm
As a Canadian this map upsets me. Why are we still stuck with Alberta? Yeesh.
- joester 11-05-2004 8:46 pm
From Hairy Fish Nuts ...
- mark 11-06-2004 3:01 am
Worrying about how a campaign "works" or a "good" candidate is superfluous when the gop has determined how our votes will be gathered and counted.
Moral issues my ass, the gop lies, steals, kills, and corrupts - and noone holds them accountable.
I'm convinced this election, like last time, was stolen.
How can you win against corruption this deep and this self righteous?
- anonymous (guest) 11-07-2004 1:24 am