Do you EVER listen to or accept a story from the "other side"? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 10-25-2004, 11:44 PM

You know, the past few months and especially the last couple of weeks have been interesting times on the Politics Boards.

I've noticed that the little sub-community we have here on the PB seems to be getting even more poralized than ever, mirroring what seems to be happening in the United States itself. But something bothers me.

It seems that many (most?) of the members here never seem to accept news stories or valid questions that their opposing politicly leaning members post. Is this just a knee-jerk reaction? Do you automatically ignore, trash or disbelieve anything that doesn't agree with your own political bias? To me this seems to be the case.

I guess everyone knows I'm pro-Kerry when it comes to the election. However, here are a few valid questions that Bush supporters have brought up.

1) Apparent lack of 5 years in Kerry's military record
2) Assertion that Bush cannot personally be directly blamed for explosives being stolen
3) The fact that Kerry has changed his mind on certain topics (actually a good thing in my opinion, but something I can see would bother some people)
4) Voting record and attendance has not been perfect
5) Claim that he talked to "all members" of the security council, when he only spoke to "all members" of the Permanent Council (splitting hairs, but a valid criticism)

These just off the top of my head.

Yet when it comes to Bush, I've yet to see (or at least remember) a single criticism or inconsistency of his that his supporters seem to have accepted.

Why is this? Why can't you see the bad with the good, so to speak. Sure, support Bush if you want, but don't put your head in the sand and ignore valid or appropriate criticism. Is it simply you don't believe them? Do you honestly think Bush is a living incarnate of goodness and truth and is incapable of lying or being wrong?

I'm honestly confused. It just smacks of elitism and complete and utter arrogance. But Bush supports only seem incapable of doing the same for their man. I know the same claim can be leveled as some "Bush-haters" (to use Ustwo's memorable epithet), but I can only speak for myself at the moment. I know Kerry is not perfect and I accept that.

What can't you do the same for your man?

Finally, even though this is a poll, I challenge each and every responder to post a reply listing something brought up by their opponents that is an acceptable criticism or inconsistency. I've listed five above. I wonder how many other posters (both Kerry and most especially Bush supporters) will list?

Mr Mephisto

host · 10-26-2004, 12:32 AM

I was made aware that Kerry voted "no" in 1991 on senate bills relating to the approval and support of the Desert Storm military operations in Kuwait and Iraq.
This was a mistake in judgment on Kerry's part, and it will hurt him politically
for the rest of his time in public life.

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 12:37 AM

It's interesting that three other members have voted that they have listened or accepted criticism of Kerry, but have not listed them.

At least host is honest with his reasons.

Maybe this trait of ignoring the other side is not wholly Republican after all...

Mr Mephisto

Irishsean · 10-26-2004, 12:59 AM

1. I think Bush misled the american people on his reasons for going into Iraq.
2. I think Bush is not a very intelligent guy, although he's charismatic and surrounds himself with intelligent people. His statements during the debates showed he's not able to handle decisions on the fly without the input of his advisors well.

Even so, I still think he's a better choice to lead the country than Kerry.

thefictionweliv · 10-26-2004, 01:22 AM

I'm a supporter of Badnarik, I've never seen anyone refute his views. Perhaps niether Bush nor Kerry would be able to hold their views against his policy and thats why they wouldn't let him in the debates.

thefictionweliv · 10-26-2004, 01:43 AM

I'm a supporter of Badnarik, I've never seen anyone refute his views. Perhaps niether Bush nor Kerry would be able to hold their views against his policy and thats why they wouldn't let him in the debates.

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irishsean

1. I think Bush misled the american people on his reasons for going into Iraq.
2. I think Bush is not a very intelligent guy, although he's charismatic and surrounds himself with intelligent people. His statements during the debates showed he's not able to handle decisions on the fly without the input of his advisors well.

Even so, I still think he's a better choice to lead the country than Kerry.

Thank you for contributing and providing a very fair and honest response.

Mr Mephisto

irateplatypus · 10-26-2004, 05:30 AM

i disagree with you mr. mephisto, i think nearly everyone on this board accepts stories from the "other side" on a regular basis. the problem is that when a weak point in a candidate is identified, some posters expect that any and all support of that candidate should be dropped because of this one issue. that somehow if they can manufacture a "gotcha" from posting a few news articles or a sketchy editorial that a person's political orientation should change. this is unrealistic and a bit dangerous. anyone who has followed politics for a meaningful amount of time has their opinions based on years of experience and reinforcement. it's rare that a debatable viewpoint is held on little enough ground for one article to remove. there are very well-educated and thoughtful people of all political persuasions on this board... i think posters are sometimes too vain to think that convictions in their opposition's platform (that, as witnessed by the quality/intelligence of their holder, are based on sound reasoning) can be destroyed by a post or two.

I would expound on this, but i don't want to hijack... just had to add my peaceful dissent to the mix.

dy156 · 10-26-2004, 05:42 AM

I'll go further than Irishsean. I think Bush dodged the draft and pops probably called in some favors to get him in the air national guard. I'm not convinced that it was a conscience effort on W.'s part to avoid service, though. I think Bush has done cocaine in his wilder days, and that may be one of the reasons he didn't want to release his full medical records. I think some of his volunteer work in his early years may have been mandatory community service, and that there might be more dirt that can be dug up in his and Laura's past.

I still think he makes a better president than Kerry would.

Ustwo · 10-26-2004, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

What can't you do the same for your man?

Being a Bush supporter on this board means you have to deal with the tinfoil hat types, the Kerry revisionist types (please don't pretend that most Kerry supporters are any different then Bush supporters in this reguard, they give Kerry every excuse possible), the I'm 18 and never had a job types, the Bush will destroy the world types.

Most conservative posters finally succumb to the onslaught of wackiness and leave the board. There is only so much time in the day, and some posters are not worth responding to. If someone really thinks Bush is going to lead to societies collapse, odds are you need to move out of your parents basement, but I'll not give their thoughts the time of day. If all someone does is post link after link after link with little thought, don't expect a lot of constructive response.

I have issues with Bush but none of them are your issues. Compassionate conservatism is expensive and without cuts in other government hand outs to expensive. Also Bush cutting taxes on lower income (yes lower income families) has put even more people into the 'I don't directly pay income taxes' department which I think is bad. All people should have a stake in the government and should have to pay for some of it, I think we all know what happens to children who are spoiled.

So if you want to argue Iraq, the war on terror, etc no I'm not going to say someone has a point, because I don't think they do. Hindsight is 20-20, and things are going as well as if not better then I would have expected. When I hear someone who was 100% against the Iraq war from the start say we should have gone into North Korea or the like, I know they are just looking for a point as if the tables were turned these same types would be saying 'What about Saddam Hussein!' just as loud.

tecoyah · 10-26-2004, 06:17 AM

Mr. Bush has been VERY strong and led us through a tough time....he has instituted a world wide war on those who blackened our eye. I give him credit for his fortitude. I simply disagree with his approach on virtually everthing after Afganistan.

tecoyah · 10-26-2004, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

i disagree with you mr. mephisto, i think nearly everyone on this board accepts stories from the "other side" on a regular basis. the problem is that when a weak point in a candidate is identified, some posters expect that any and all support of that candidate should be dropped because of this one issue. that somehow if they can manufacture a "gotcha" from posting a few news articles or a sketchy editorial that a person's political orientation should change. this is unrealistic and a bit dangerous. anyone who has followed politics for a meaningful amount of time has their opinions based on years of experience and reinforcement. it's rare that a debatable viewpoint is held on little enough ground for one article to remove. there are very well-educated and thoughtful people of all political persuasions on this board... i think posters are sometimes too vain to think that convictions in their opposition's platform (that, as witnessed by the quality/intelligence of their holder, are based on sound reasoning) can be destroyed by a post or two.

I would expound on this, but i don't want to hijack... just had to add my peaceful dissent to the mix.

Truly...a well put statement, and I agree 100%

Thank you

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

<SNIPPED OBLIGATORY USTWO COMMENTS ON KERRY SUPPORTER ATTACKS>

I have issues with Bush but none of them are your issues.

Huh?

Quote:

Compassionate conservatism is expensive and without cuts in other government hand outs to expensive. Also Bush cutting taxes on lower income (yes lower income families) has put even more people into the 'I don't directly pay income taxes' department which I think is bad. All people should have a stake in the government and should have to pay for some of it, I think we all know what happens to children who are spoiled.

I'm not sure I understand the comment on compassionate conservatism being expensive, but it seems to me that you're admiting Bush has some faults. That's good. I appreciate your honesty.

Quote:

So if you want to argue Iraq, the war on terror, etc no I'm not going to say someone has a point, because I don't think they do. .

This isn't the thread to discuss this, so I'll simply say I disagree. You can't say "they don't have a point" anymore than I can say "you don't have a nose".

Thanks for your post though.

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

i disagree with you mr. mephisto, i think nearly everyone on this board accepts stories from the "other side" on a regular basis.

Well, I disagree with you. I don't think everyone does. Some do, but certainly not everyone and certainly not as much the closer we get to the election. Either way, the point of the thread is to tease out these people ("nearly everyone") who do accept criticism of their candidate or "stories from the other side" (sounds like a Twilight Zone episode!).

Quote:

there are very well-educated and thoughtful people of all political persuasions on this board...

I never said otherwise. I have utmost respect for the conservatives on this board. I may not agree with the politics of Ustwo or Daswing (for example), but I think they generally put forward good arguments, occasionally sprinked with complete nonesense (just like Kerry supporters and the liberals here).

The point of this thread is to see if any of us (on both sides) are "man enough" to admit that some of the criticism from the other side is valid. I don't expect it to change their views, but I'm curious as to whether any of us will accept it. I certainly can, and it seems some of this thread's posters can.

The question goes out to the rest of the viewers... Can YOU?

Mr Mephisto

ARTelevision · 10-26-2004, 07:20 AM

I listen all the time.
I've noted my impetus to endorse a Clinton-type public Healthcare Initiative and I listen avidly to the planning for something like that.

I am also in favor - and have always been - of a comprehensive public works program to put unemployed folks back to work in building our sorely deteriorated infrastructure. I don't hear much about something like that, but I think it's needed as much as it was during the time of the WPA.

roachboy · 10-26-2004, 08:45 AM

i take account of what comes from the right.

on a few occasions, material i have encountered here has influenced positions---i was pushed toward becoming agnostic on gun control....but then i run into appalling threads (like the riots in pa thread) rooted in fantasies of using weapons to mow down people who disagree with some conservatives and i start to reconsider that shift in my thinking once again.

across a number of conversations, however, i have encountered folk whose presence i quite like, and this has been the treat of being here.

on the other hand:
i am not interested an understanding of the political that reduces it to supporting one or another candidate in this latest round of faction rotation within the oligarchy.
i find the deterioration of debate that seems to accompany the approach of the election to be frustrating.

too often, i find that people who operate from the bush camp refuse to explain the basis for their positions or to subject the premises of their claims to discussion. too often these positions operate as if lather-rinse-repeat was the modus operandi.
i had come to the conclusion that this followed from an inability to do it.
i began to think that perhaps this inability was connected to the nature of the discourse particular to bushworld---the emphasis on Will, etc.
but maybe it is as much a function of messageboard culture.

i'll wait until the election idiocy dies down to decide about that.

cthulu23 · 10-26-2004, 08:59 AM

I don't agree with Kerry's stance on Iraq and the death penalty nor am I particularly fond of the modern Democratic party. I think that both parties have turned their backs on their constituents and are essentially playing on the same team. The "people" are just a means to an end for both. As such, I am willing ot listen to criticisms coming from eihter direction. With that said, I'm voting Kerry because I feel that four more years of Bush will harm this country immensely.

Personally, I can't wait to get back to a point where I can start criticising Democrats again. I was a pretty sharp critic of Clinton, although my reasons were probably different from those of the conservatives on this board.

rukkyg · 10-26-2004, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

1) Apparent lack of 5 years in Kerry's military record
2) Assertion that Bush cannot personally be directly blamed for explosives being stolen
3) The fact that Kerry has changed his mind on certain topics (actually a good thing in my opinion, but something I can see would bother some people)
4) Voting record and attendance has not been perfect
5) Claim that he talked to "all members" of the security council, when he only spoke to "all members" of the Permanent Council (splitting hairs, but a valid criticism)

1) Never heard that.
2) He can't, but it is partially his fault.
3) Changing your mind is a good thing. Although I don't agree with Kerry's stance on the current Iraq war, he hasn't changed positions since the mid '90s.
4) Of course it hasn't. He's running for president. How often has the President been in the white house during the past year?
5) Who cares?

So from these, I can say I concede their points as agreeing with what they dissagree with, or saying that they don't matter at all.

aliali · 10-26-2004, 01:30 PM

My problem is I don't really support Bush, but spend a lot of my time defending him since the institutional press bias has simply gone over the edge. I would defend Kerry if the NYTimes, CBSNews, or the like was unfair to him. (I know there are pro-Bush outlets out there, but the bias from the so-called news outlets has not be so one-sided in my lifetime). Since I do end up having to defend Bush more, here goes:

1) He is as wrong as anyone can be on Tort reform. His statements and those of his administration on this issue are factually incorrect and their conclusions are unjustified. Doctors are not fleeing your state. Their insurance rates are not up b/c of lawsuits. They are up b/c insurance companies lost money in investments. Caps on damages only hurts the truly injured not those who file frivolous claims. Insurance rates will not, WILL NOT go down if caps on damages are instituted. Caps on damages protect the rich and deprive the injured on their rights.

2) Steel Tariffs

3) He likely got help getting in the national guard and he likely knows it.

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rukkyg

1) Never heard that.
2) He can't, but it is partially his fault.
3) Changing your mind is a good thing. Although I don't agree with Kerry's stance on the current Iraq war, he hasn't changed positions since the mid '90s.
4) Of course it hasn't. He's running for president. How often has the President been in the white house during the past year?
5) Who cares?

So from these, I can say I concede their points as agreeing with what they dissagree with, or saying that they don't matter at all.

We're not here to argue the points I listed "off the top of my head" above.

If you, personally, have never accepted any criticism of Kerry from the other side and don't believe any of their "attacks" are valid, then this thread holds no interest for you.

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aliali

My problem is I don't really support Bush, but spend a lot of my time defending him since the institutional press bias has simply gone over the edge. I would defend Kerry if the NYTimes, CBSNews, or the like was unfair to him. (I know there are pro-Bush outlets out there, but the bias from the so-called news outlets has not be so one-sided in my lifetime). Since I do end up having to defend Bush more, here goes:

1) He is as wrong as anyone can be on Tort reform. His statements and those of his administration on this issue are factually incorrect and their conclusions are unjustified. Doctors are not fleeing your state. Their insurance rates are not up b/c of lawsuits. They are up b/c insurance companies lost money in investments. Caps on damages only hurts the truly injured not those who file frivolous claims. Insurance rates will not, WILL NOT go down if caps on damages are instituted. Caps on damages protect the rich and deprive the injured on their rights.

2) Steel Tariffs

3) He likely got help getting in the national guard and he likely knows it.

Once again, thanks for a valuable and honest contribution.

My opinion of Bush supporters has been raised. I guess there is a lot of knee-jerk reactions here; which is entirely understandable really.

When we pause and talk in a civil respectful manner, it seems we can all agree "our candidate" is not perfect. Well, maybe not all of us, but most of us...

Mr Mephisto

daswig · 10-26-2004, 02:40 PM

I'm not voting (ON EDIT: in this poll, I AM voting in the election, for Bush, I'm just not happy about it. Sorry 'bout the confusion. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima effin culpa!!!) , because none of the answers really suit me. Frankly, I don't like Bush much. But I REALLY loathe Kerry. I'm a registered Independent, and have voted for third party candidates several times. The last time I voted third party in the Presidential election was 1992. After that goatfuck, I stopped voting third party nationally, because IMHO the Democrats consistently do far more damage to us as a country than the Republicans are capable of. While I'm still generally a Libertarian, I can't vote Libertarian, and must approach it as a lesser of two evils kind of situation and vote accordingly. Bush isn't great, but Kerry will be an absolute, unmitigated disaster if he wins.

For the Libertarians out there who say "vote your conscience", I have to ask if you remember the 1990's as an adult, or if you are viewing it through the prism of childhood.

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 02:58 PM

If that's the case Daswig (ie, your dislike of Kerry), and despite the fact that it goes against my own personal political leanings, I would ask you to vote for Bush.

Not voting at all is far far worse than voting for "my opponent".

In other words, a vote lost is worse than a vote for Bush.

I feel quite strongly about this.

Mr Mephisto

Konichiwaneko · 10-26-2004, 03:42 PM

I was a democrat until I got a job in corporate america, and I see the rules of the game.

I love some of the ideas Democrats have, but I have how they only tell you mostly what's good about the plan and no all the negatives and how it will hurt the individual.

Social Programs are meant for the mob, and who pays for it? The individual. If you are going to make everyone equal, you will rise people up...but you will also take people down.

I think my father said it best to me. Democrats have good ideas, but they kill themselves on the inside by moving so slow. In a world wanting to go forward, you can't wait for everyone. If you do your system will collapse.

So as a former democrat, yes I still listen, I love some of the charisma that democrats have, and as long as the candidate doesn't Negatively slander and accuse..>I like the guy. By that I mean viciouss attacks of half truths or lies to move people to the other side. I'm a honest player, and I don't mind a truthful attack on character, but if you resort to lies and misconceptions...that's just wrong.

quicksteal · 10-26-2004, 04:40 PM

I don't agree with Bush 100%, but the attacks against him are way too vicious for me to go along with them.

Ex. 1: Bush's tax cuts to all taxpayers. The Democrats bash him for giving tax cuts to the rich, despite the fact that most economists say that the tax cuts were good for the economy and made the recession shorter. My problem with the tax cuts is that they did in fact shift more of the tax burden on the middle class. This would be fixable with a marginal adjustment to either raise the taxes on the upper class a little bit, or lower the middle class taxes a little bit. But the Democrats want to kill the economy and take the upper class tax cuts away.

Ex. 2: Bush was wrong about the WMD in Iraq. Although he did not gather the intelligence himself, he is the first man responsible for interpreting it. I admire the fact that he didn't back down from Saddam like many other leaders did, but our rationale for going to war was that he had weapons, and so far that's been incorrect. The Democrats bring this up all the time, that Bush "misled" the American people. It makes my blood boil every time, because Kerry was given the same intelligence, and being on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I would have thought that he might take a good look at it. Instead, he claims that he just went along with the President, and that he was "misled" like the rest of America.

Moderates just don't fit in anymore in America. We've got to pick the side that's closest and hammer away at the other side, hoping that the progress that you want gets passed and nothing else. It's so annoying to hear people spouting Michael Moore's propaganda, but it's just as annoying to hear about Kerry's Swift Boat medals. What am I supposed to do about it? If I could vote -1 times for Kerry, I'd do that, but instead I have to vote 1 time for Bush.

JumpinJesus · 10-26-2004, 05:33 PM

While I will be voting for Kerry next Tuesday, I stand by my belief that he was by far not the best Democratic candidate. I grew tired very quickly of his "I've been in combat" schtick. I also don't like that he says that he'll do things differently in Iraq, but has yet to give any specifics on this or any other policy. All he can seem to say is that he'll do things differently. Differently doesn't necessarily mean better. But at this point, I'm willing to give him the chance.

tspikes51 · 10-26-2004, 05:51 PM

-Bush is against same-sex civil union.
-Kerry has better stance on stem cell research.

I'll probably vote for Bush because he is better equipped to succeed in the war that we're already in. It doesn't make any difference whether Kerry would have gone to war in Iraq or not, because the fact is that we're already in one.

tspikes51 · 10-26-2004, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Not voting at all is far far worse than voting for "my opponent".

In other words, a vote lost is worse than a vote for Bush.

I feel quite strongly about this.

Thank you. My advice to daswig would be that if you don't want to vote for either of the main party candidates, vote a candidate of another party, there are a lot of them out there, or write in your own candidate. No offense intended, but if you want to criticize the US government as much as you do,
you should vote. Otherwise, you're just adding to the problem.

Voting is a responsibility more than a right.

rukkyg · 10-26-2004, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

We're not here to argue the points I listed "off the top of my head" above.

If you, personally, have never accepted any criticism of Kerry from the other side and don't believe any of their "attacks" are valid, then this thread holds no interest for you.

Mr Mephisto

Just because I agree with their attacks, but disagree that they're bad things doesn't mean that this thread doesn't hold interest to me.

For example, Bush's stump speach always says that "Kerry will raise taxes." I say "Good!"

Bush says Kerry changes positions. I say Good. Thinking people adapt to changing situations by changing their position.

I conceed that Kerry does these things. Therefore I have "listened to or accepted a story from the 'other side'."

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 06:05 PM

OK, I think I understand you now. And to be honest, I agree with what you're saying.

But I still ask, are there no criticisms from the "other side" that you think at least has some merit?

This thread is not about knocking either candidate. It's an opportunity for posters to share their thoughts in a non-confrotational and open manner. And, to be perfectly honest, it's succeeded far beyond my expectations. I'm impressed with everyone who has posted so far.

Mr Mephisto

daswig · 10-26-2004, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tspikes51

Thank you. My advice to daswig would be that if you don't want to vote for either of the main party candidates, vote a candidate of another party, there are a lot of them out there, or write in your own candidate. No offense intended, but if you want to criticize the US government as much as you do,
you should vote. Otherwise, you're just adding to the problem.

Voting is a responsibility more than a right.

Please excuse my mistake: I'm voting, and I'm voting for Bush. I'm just not real happy about it. If the Democrats had given us a decent candidate to vote for, I'd be voting Democratic. Hell, I'da voted for Dean in a heartbeat.

On edit: I see the mistake. When I said "I'm not voting" up thread, I was talking about in the poll for the thread, not the election. I AM voting in the election, just not in the poll, because the poll responses don't match where I am. Sorry 'bout that.

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 06:50 PM

haha... OK, the funny thing is that I thought that when I first read your response. It was only later that I came back and posted my reply.

Good for you for voting.

But boo!! for voting Bush.

[j/k]

Mr Mephisto

Lebell · 10-26-2004, 06:53 PM

An excellent thread, Mr. Mephisto.

Yes, I agree with Irate on this, but I do think that there are those who are so entrenched in an "us vs. them" mindset, that any criticism of their candidate cannot be tolerated.

Frankly these people scare me.

Fortunately, they also tend to get themselves banned from TFP.

filtherton · 10-27-2004, 12:47 PM

It is getting to the point with me that i don't want to listen to or accept a story from either side.

aliali · 11-01-2004, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aliali

My problem is I don't really support Bush, but spend a lot of my time defending him since the institutional press bias has simply gone over the edge. I would defend Kerry if the NYTimes, CBSNews, or the like was unfair to him. (I know there are pro-Bush outlets out there, but the bias from the so-called news outlets has not be so one-sided in my lifetime). Since I do end up having to defend Bush more, here goes:

1) He is as wrong as anyone can be on Tort reform. His statements and those of his administration on this issue are factually incorrect and their conclusions are unjustified. Doctors are not fleeing your state. Their insurance rates are not up b/c of lawsuits. They are up b/c insurance companies lost money in investments. Caps on damages only hurts the truly injured not those who file frivolous claims. Insurance rates will not, WILL NOT go down if caps on damages are instituted. Caps on damages protect the rich and deprive the injured on their rights.

2) Steel Tariffs

3) He likely got help getting in the national guard and he likely knows it.

Thought of another quite obvious one

4) Should not have tried to claim that UBL was not that important to him after he wasn't found in the Afghan invasion and attn was turned toward Iraq. Stupid, probably untrue, and made criticisms that he took his eye off the ball reasoned (even if not correct).

xepherys · 11-01-2004, 04:30 PM

None of the above. I'm disappointed that they are the only two who might win. However, I will gladyl "waste" my vote to vote my conscience.

View Poll Results: Do you ever accept valid criticism of your man?
Never. God wants Bush to be President after all.	5	12.50%
Sometimes, and I'll list them below. Bush is not perfect.	10	25.00%
Sometimes, and I'll list them below. Kerry is not perfect.	21	52.50%
Never. Kerry is this country's last hope.	4	10.00%
Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll

10-25-2004, 11:44 PM	#1 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Do you EVER listen to or accept a story from the "other side"? You know, the past few months and especially the last couple of weeks have been interesting times on the Politics Boards. I've noticed that the little sub-community we have here on the PB seems to be getting even more poralized than ever, mirroring what seems to be happening in the United States itself. But something bothers me. It seems that many (most?) of the members here never seem to accept news stories or valid questions that their opposing politicly leaning members post. Is this just a knee-jerk reaction? Do you automatically ignore, trash or disbelieve anything that doesn't agree with your own political bias? To me this seems to be the case. I guess everyone knows I'm pro-Kerry when it comes to the election. However, here are a few valid questions that Bush supporters have brought up. 1) Apparent lack of 5 years in Kerry's military record 2) Assertion that Bush cannot personally be directly blamed for explosives being stolen 3) The fact that Kerry has changed his mind on certain topics (actually a good thing in my opinion, but something I can see would bother some people) 4) Voting record and attendance has not been perfect 5) Claim that he talked to "all members" of the security council, when he only spoke to "all members" of the Permanent Council (splitting hairs, but a valid criticism) These just off the top of my head. Yet when it comes to Bush, I've yet to see (or at least remember) a single criticism or inconsistency of his that his supporters seem to have accepted. Why is this? Why can't you see the bad with the good, so to speak. Sure, support Bush if you want, but don't put your head in the sand and ignore valid or appropriate criticism. Is it simply you don't believe them? Do you honestly think Bush is a living incarnate of goodness and truth and is incapable of lying or being wrong? I'm honestly confused. It just smacks of elitism and complete and utter arrogance. But Bush supports only seem incapable of doing the same for their man. I know the same claim can be leveled as some "Bush-haters" (to use Ustwo's memorable epithet), but I can only speak for myself at the moment. I know Kerry is not perfect and I accept that. What can't you do the same for your man? Finally, even though this is a poll, I challenge each and every responder to post a reply listing something brought up by their opponents that is an acceptable criticism or inconsistency. I've listed five above. I wonder how many other posters (both Kerry and most especially Bush supporters) will list? Mr Mephisto

10-26-2004, 12:59 AM	#4 (permalink)
Irishsean edited for content Location: Austin, TX	1. I think Bush misled the american people on his reasons for going into Iraq. 2. I think Bush is not a very intelligent guy, although he's charismatic and surrounds himself with intelligent people. His statements during the debates showed he's not able to handle decisions on the fly without the input of his advisors well. Even so, I still think he's a better choice to lead the country than Kerry. __________________ There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances. Leon Trotsky

10-26-2004, 05:30 AM	#8 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	i disagree with you mr. mephisto, i think nearly everyone on this board accepts stories from the "other side" on a regular basis. the problem is that when a weak point in a candidate is identified, some posters expect that any and all support of that candidate should be dropped because of this one issue. that somehow if they can manufacture a "gotcha" from posting a few news articles or a sketchy editorial that a person's political orientation should change. this is unrealistic and a bit dangerous. anyone who has followed politics for a meaningful amount of time has their opinions based on years of experience and reinforcement. it's rare that a debatable viewpoint is held on little enough ground for one article to remove. there are very well-educated and thoughtful people of all political persuasions on this board... i think posters are sometimes too vain to think that convictions in their opposition's platform (that, as witnessed by the quality/intelligence of their holder, are based on sound reasoning) can be destroyed by a post or two. I would expound on this, but i don't want to hijack... just had to add my peaceful dissent to the mix. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

10-26-2004, 06:17 AM	#11 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Mr. Bush has been VERY strong and led us through a tough time....he has instituted a world wide war on those who blackened our eye. I give him credit for his fortitude. I simply disagree with his approach on virtually everthing after Afganistan. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-26-2004, 12:32 AM	#2 (permalink)
host Banned	I was made aware that Kerry voted "no" in 1991 on senate bills relating to the approval and support of the Desert Storm military operations in Kuwait and Iraq. This was a mistake in judgment on Kerry's part, and it will hurt him politically for the rest of his time in public life.

10-26-2004, 12:37 AM	#3 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	It's interesting that three other members have voted that they have listened or accepted criticism of Kerry, but have not listed them. At least host is honest with his reasons. Maybe this trait of ignoring the other side is not wholly Republican after all... Mr Mephisto

10-26-2004, 01:22 AM	#5 (permalink)
thefictionweliv Insane	I'm a supporter of Badnarik, I've never seen anyone refute his views. Perhaps niether Bush nor Kerry would be able to hold their views against his policy and thats why they wouldn't let him in the debates.

10-26-2004, 01:43 AM	#6 (permalink)
thefictionweliv Insane	I'm a supporter of Badnarik, I've never seen anyone refute his views. Perhaps niether Bush nor Kerry would be able to hold their views against his policy and thats why they wouldn't let him in the debates.

10-26-2004, 05:42 AM	#9 (permalink)
dy156 cookie Location: in the backwoods	I'll go further than Irishsean. I think Bush dodged the draft and pops probably called in some favors to get him in the air national guard. I'm not convinced that it was a conscience effort on W.'s part to avoid service, though. I think Bush has done cocaine in his wilder days, and that may be one of the reasons he didn't want to release his full medical records. I think some of his volunteer work in his early years may have been mandatory community service, and that there might be more dirt that can be dug up in his and Laura's past. I still think he makes a better president than Kerry would.

10-26-2004, 07:20 AM	#15 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I listen all the time. I've noted my impetus to endorse a Clinton-type public Healthcare Initiative and I listen avidly to the planning for something like that. I am also in favor - and have always been - of a comprehensive public works program to put unemployed folks back to work in building our sorely deteriorated infrastructure. I don't hear much about something like that, but I think it's needed as much as it was during the time of the WPA. __________________ create evolution

10-26-2004, 08:45 AM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i take account of what comes from the right. on a few occasions, material i have encountered here has influenced positions---i was pushed toward becoming agnostic on gun control....but then i run into appalling threads (like the riots in pa thread) rooted in fantasies of using weapons to mow down people who disagree with some conservatives and i start to reconsider that shift in my thinking once again. across a number of conversations, however, i have encountered folk whose presence i quite like, and this has been the treat of being here. on the other hand: i am not interested an understanding of the political that reduces it to supporting one or another candidate in this latest round of faction rotation within the oligarchy. i find the deterioration of debate that seems to accompany the approach of the election to be frustrating. too often, i find that people who operate from the bush camp refuse to explain the basis for their positions or to subject the premises of their claims to discussion. too often these positions operate as if lather-rinse-repeat was the modus operandi. i had come to the conclusion that this followed from an inability to do it. i began to think that perhaps this inability was connected to the nature of the discourse particular to bushworld---the emphasis on Will, etc. but maybe it is as much a function of messageboard culture. i'll wait until the election idiocy dies down to decide about that. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-26-2004, 08:59 AM	#17 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	I don't agree with Kerry's stance on Iraq and the death penalty nor am I particularly fond of the modern Democratic party. I think that both parties have turned their backs on their constituents and are essentially playing on the same team. The "people" are just a means to an end for both. As such, I am willing ot listen to criticisms coming from eihter direction. With that said, I'm voting Kerry because I feel that four more years of Bush will harm this country immensely. Personally, I can't wait to get back to a point where I can start criticising Democrats again. I was a pretty sharp critic of Clinton, although my reasons were probably different from those of the conservatives on this board.

10-26-2004, 01:30 PM	#19 (permalink)
aliali Insane Location: Missouri	My problem is I don't really support Bush, but spend a lot of my time defending him since the institutional press bias has simply gone over the edge. I would defend Kerry if the NYTimes, CBSNews, or the like was unfair to him. (I know there are pro-Bush outlets out there, but the bias from the so-called news outlets has not be so one-sided in my lifetime). Since I do end up having to defend Bush more, here goes: 1) He is as wrong as anyone can be on Tort reform. His statements and those of his administration on this issue are factually incorrect and their conclusions are unjustified. Doctors are not fleeing your state. Their insurance rates are not up b/c of lawsuits. They are up b/c insurance companies lost money in investments. Caps on damages only hurts the truly injured not those who file frivolous claims. Insurance rates will not, WILL NOT go down if caps on damages are instituted. Caps on damages protect the rich and deprive the injured on their rights. 2) Steel Tariffs 3) He likely got help getting in the national guard and he likely knows it.

10-26-2004, 02:40 PM	#22 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	I'm not voting (ON EDIT: in this poll, I AM voting in the election, for Bush, I'm just not happy about it. Sorry 'bout the confusion. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima effin culpa!!!) , because none of the answers really suit me. Frankly, I don't like Bush much. But I REALLY loathe Kerry. I'm a registered Independent, and have voted for third party candidates several times. The last time I voted third party in the Presidential election was 1992. After that goatfuck, I stopped voting third party nationally, because IMHO the Democrats consistently do far more damage to us as a country than the Republicans are capable of. While I'm still generally a Libertarian, I can't vote Libertarian, and must approach it as a lesser of two evils kind of situation and vote accordingly. Bush isn't great, but Kerry will be an absolute, unmitigated disaster if he wins. For the Libertarians out there who say "vote your conscience", I have to ask if you remember the 1990's as an adult, or if you are viewing it through the prism of childhood. Last edited by daswig; 10-26-2004 at 06:38 PM..

10-26-2004, 02:58 PM	#23 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	If that's the case Daswig (ie, your dislike of Kerry), and despite the fact that it goes against my own personal political leanings, I would ask you to vote for Bush. Not voting at all is far far worse than voting for "my opponent". In other words, a vote lost is worse than a vote for Bush. I feel quite strongly about this. Mr Mephisto

10-26-2004, 03:42 PM	#24 (permalink)
Konichiwaneko The Dreaded Pixel Nazi Location: Inside my camera	I was a democrat until I got a job in corporate america, and I see the rules of the game. I love some of the ideas Democrats have, but I have how they only tell you mostly what's good about the plan and no all the negatives and how it will hurt the individual. Social Programs are meant for the mob, and who pays for it? The individual. If you are going to make everyone equal, you will rise people up...but you will also take people down. I think my father said it best to me. Democrats have good ideas, but they kill themselves on the inside by moving so slow. In a world wanting to go forward, you can't wait for everyone. If you do your system will collapse. So as a former democrat, yes I still listen, I love some of the charisma that democrats have, and as long as the candidate doesn't Negatively slander and accuse..>I like the guy. By that I mean viciouss attacks of half truths or lies to move people to the other side. I'm a honest player, and I don't mind a truthful attack on character, but if you resort to lies and misconceptions...that's just wrong. __________________ Hesitate. Pull me in. Breath on breath. Skin on skin. Loving deep. Falling fast. All right here. Let this last. Here with our lips locked tight. Baby the time is right for us... to forget about us.

10-26-2004, 04:40 PM	#25 (permalink)
quicksteal Crazy Location: Auburn, AL	I don't agree with Bush 100%, but the attacks against him are way too vicious for me to go along with them. Ex. 1: Bush's tax cuts to all taxpayers. The Democrats bash him for giving tax cuts to the rich, despite the fact that most economists say that the tax cuts were good for the economy and made the recession shorter. My problem with the tax cuts is that they did in fact shift more of the tax burden on the middle class. This would be fixable with a marginal adjustment to either raise the taxes on the upper class a little bit, or lower the middle class taxes a little bit. But the Democrats want to kill the economy and take the upper class tax cuts away. Ex. 2: Bush was wrong about the WMD in Iraq. Although he did not gather the intelligence himself, he is the first man responsible for interpreting it. I admire the fact that he didn't back down from Saddam like many other leaders did, but our rationale for going to war was that he had weapons, and so far that's been incorrect. The Democrats bring this up all the time, that Bush "misled" the American people. It makes my blood boil every time, because Kerry was given the same intelligence, and being on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I would have thought that he might take a good look at it. Instead, he claims that he just went along with the President, and that he was "misled" like the rest of America. Moderates just don't fit in anymore in America. We've got to pick the side that's closest and hammer away at the other side, hoping that the progress that you want gets passed and nothing else. It's so annoying to hear people spouting Michael Moore's propaganda, but it's just as annoying to hear about Kerry's Swift Boat medals. What am I supposed to do about it? If I could vote -1 times for Kerry, I'd do that, but instead I have to vote 1 time for Bush.

10-26-2004, 05:33 PM	#26 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	While I will be voting for Kerry next Tuesday, I stand by my belief that he was by far not the best Democratic candidate. I grew tired very quickly of his "I've been in combat" schtick. I also don't like that he says that he'll do things differently in Iraq, but has yet to give any specifics on this or any other policy. All he can seem to say is that he'll do things differently. Differently doesn't necessarily mean better. But at this point, I'm willing to give him the chance. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

10-26-2004, 05:51 PM	#27 (permalink)
tspikes51 Fuckin' A Location: Lex Vegas	-Bush is against same-sex civil union. -Kerry has better stance on stem cell research. I'll probably vote for Bush because he is better equipped to succeed in the war that we're already in. It doesn't make any difference whether Kerry would have gone to war in Iraq or not, because the fact is that we're already in one. __________________ "I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million." -Maddox

10-26-2004, 06:05 PM	#30 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	OK, I think I understand you now. And to be honest, I agree with what you're saying. But I still ask, are there no criticisms from the "other side" that you think at least has some merit? This thread is not about knocking either candidate. It's an opportunity for posters to share their thoughts in a non-confrotational and open manner. And, to be perfectly honest, it's succeeded far beyond my expectations. I'm impressed with everyone who has posted so far. Mr Mephisto

10-26-2004, 06:50 PM	#32 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	haha... OK, the funny thing is that I thought that when I first read your response. It was only later that I came back and posted my reply. Good for you for voting. But boo!! for voting Bush. [j/k] Mr Mephisto

10-26-2004, 06:53 PM	#33 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	An excellent thread, Mr. Mephisto. Yes, I agree with Irate on this, but I do think that there are those who are so entrenched in an "us vs. them" mindset, that any criticism of their candidate cannot be tolerated. Frankly these people scare me. Fortunately, they also tend to get themselves banned from TFP. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-27-2004, 12:47 PM	#34 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	It is getting to the point with me that i don't want to listen to or accept a story from either side.

11-01-2004, 04:30 PM	#36 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	None of the above. I'm disappointed that they are the only two who might win. However, I will gladyl "waste" my vote to vote my conscience.