Irishsean

In the interest of hearing both sides,

Things I'm sick of hearing from the left:

If you voted for Bush you:
A) Have a low IQ.
B) Are a crazed fundamentalist christian that has the intention of forcing your beliefs on all, or killing them.
C) Are very confused.
D) Really meant to vote democrat, and the evil vast right wing conspiracy manipulated your vote.

Any others?

__________________
There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances.
Leon Trotsky

The Magic

e) Bush is a facist
f)OMG BUSH LIED -- 1) Most likely, Every president has lied to the public one time or another. At least the presidents that have faced a national crisis 2) Everyone thought there were WMDs

I would consider myself a democrat (moderate though), and I just can't stand to hear some of the things said. I hate partisan politics.

Manx

I'm sick of hearing how this thread, listing boiled-down and extreme versions of constantly hashed out opinions, is comparable to the other thread - which was started to specifically discuss the concept that Bush won a mandate (before it evolved into a discussion of Hillary Clinton).

This thread is not the converse of the other.

Flyguy

I didn't....

Why?

Becasue for one, Iraq, DIDN'T attack us!! I read an article in the wall street journal today that people STILL believe that Iraq still had something to do with 9/11.

Irishsean

Thus the ! Waaah, fucking boo! It doesn't mean this thread contains no true feelings...

__________________
There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances.
Leon Trotsky

cthulu23

I'd say that the reasons listed are mainly conservative projections of what they think the other side is feeling and bear little resemblance to any majority opinion. They sure do make the opposition look bad, though, don't they?

Speaking of whining....

smooth

you have cause and effect mixed up.

should read: if A, B, and/or C (I never claim D), then you most likely voted for Bush.

The difference: people without A,B, and/or C voted for Bush, too; but I suppose you need to demonstrate that you don't fit into any of those categories if you don't want to get lumped in with them.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Irishsean

A) http://americanassembler.com/feature...e_averages.htm

B) http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t+gay+marriage

C) Does this one really need any justification?

D) http://www.makethemaccountable.com/c...chineFraud.htm


So this is all just made up and blown out of proportion?

__________________
There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances.
Leon Trotsky

Irishsean

I'm sorry, this is the kind of BS I'm talking about right here. What makes a lot of democrats who post here believe they are somehow more equal than others to have opinions.

BTW, I didn't vote for Bush either...

__________________
There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances.
Leon Trotsky

smooth

hahahaha, I don't know, why not ask them?


what are you saying? that you fit into a, b, and/or c, but you didn't vote for bush?


edit:
shit, you couldn't even bother to read the first two paragraphs of the link you posted:

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Manx

I think it is logically undeniable that Fundamentalist Christians have the desire to force their beliefs on all. And I said as much.

I did not say "crazed" or "killing".

So, yes - made up and blown out of proportion.

smooth

hmm, maybe that's a better tactic. take 'em on one at a time.

OP said: claim is: all bush supporters are fundies

whereas claim is: all fundies are supporters of bush


BIG difference.

hopefully this will help those afflicted by C: confused people vote for bush

(which is not the same as: all bush voters are confused)

ciao

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

The Magic

For one, just because they didn't attack us doesn't mean they couldn't have WMD.

But let me rephrase my previous statement: Nearly every country and nearly every politician agreed he probably had WMD.

cthulu23

I guess that a few internet posts and a humor column really do speak for millions of people. Thanks for clearing that up.

Flyguy

So we were justified in attacking them right? After the Bush clan put out their lies about WMD's of course everybody believed it! Also, N. Korea, Iran, China. They have WMD's and dictators. Why aren't we imposing our version of freedom upon them? No seems to be able to answer this one.

Publius

Really? is that so? well that explains the Security Council vote then doesn’t it? Actually most people who were paying attention knew that Saddam probably didn’t have WMD. Sure he wanted to have them, no question there, but the fact is that he didn’t have them. And how did most (European) countries know that he didn’t have them? Russian intelligence reports. After Powell delivered his supposed "evidence" to the Security Council Russian intelligence was able to discredit nearly everything that the Bush administration was claiming about Iraqi WMD programs. The problem was that the Bush administration was taking as fact British intelligence reports without double checking their sources. Well hate to break the bad new but unlike what “James Bond” may teach us, British “intelligence” is some of the worst in the world, always has been. (Heck even Churchill didn’t trust it which is why he privately funded his own intelligence gathering agency during WW2). Russian intelligence, on the other hand, at least so far as the Middle East and Central Asia goes, is still some of the best in the world. Why no one in the Bush administration thought to cross-check the British intelligence with what the Russian intelligence was saying is beyond me, but then again I’m not paid to think so why ask why?

Kalibah

juan said on Fox


" gay bashing from the republicans"


look- If Im not FOR gay marriages- that means Im gay bashing? seriously - Ive heard atleast 4 pundits say EXACTLY that of the bans on gay marriages in the 11 -odd states


that and Bush stole the election (2000)


Supreme court said the recount must follow Floridas Law- and that said it had to end by such and such time and date

cthulu23

Add Fox News to the tally. We're really getting somewhere here.

shakran

well the simple fact is that the "evidence" Powell presented, even if it were all true, was circumstantial and shaky at its very best.

"he's got semi trailers! therefore he's got chemical weapons laboratories!"

By that logic, every truck stop needs to be disarmed by Bush.



Wanna know what the real difference between Dems and Republicans is? I'm not talking philosophical -those are obvious. I'm talking about electability. The republicans are better organized. They know what the people want and they make sure to float a candidate that looks like what the people want. They pride themselves on making a decision and sticking to it, even if that decision is disasterous.

The democrats are running around foolishly believing that the country wants leaders who have the best interest of the country at heart.

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. We want leaders who have OUR best interests at heart, and we don't want to have to study too much to figure out who they are.

That's why Bush won.

He has the best interest of the elite rich at heart, so naturally he's got their vote.

And because no one wants to educate themselves about anything but playstation and The Apprentice anymore, he was able to trick the poor into thinking he had their best interest at heart, even as he worked to make it even more improbable that they'd ever claw their way up to middle class or even rich status.

The democrats can't run a campaign to save their life. Republicans and democrats alike today are agreeing that Kerry ran a dumbassed campaign. His manager told him not to harp on the war. Why the HELL would you not harp on the hottest issue this election season? Bush fired attack after attack at Kerry and until the final few weeks of his campaign, Kerry didn't respond at all.

What we have here is a leader who lied to get us into a war - you can deny it all you want, but the facts are there. He said there were WMD's, and there weren't. He said Saddam had ties to terrorists who were after us, and he didn't. He said major combat operations were over, and a thousand soldiers died and many more thousands were crippled for life.

We have a leader who is working to concentrate most of the country's wealth in a very small minority of the population - a situation that NO culture has EVER survived in human history. It sunk the Romans, it sunk the Greeks, it sunk the USSR, and it WILL sink us if it's not reversed.

We have a leader who brags about the fact that he doesn't like to educate himself on current events. He brags that he surrounds himself with people that think exactly like he does and then believes everything they say. He doesn't like to be informed before he makes decisions. All these facts are irrefutable, no matter how much bleating the neo-cons want to spout.

With all these factors working against Bush, Bonzo the Monkey should have been able to soundly defeat him. The fact that Kerry failed utterly to do so is not so much a Bush victory as it is an indication that the democrats don't know how to win anymore.

If you repeat something enough times it becomes the truth, especially if the other side won't refute it. That's what's happened in the past four years of Bush's presidency, it's what happened in the Bush campaign, and it's what's gonna happen for the next 4 years.


The democrats got very lucky with Bill Clinton. Here was a guy who was an average joe - a Bubba, but he was also sharp, personable, charming, young, and vibrant. He got the whitehouse not because he was a democrat and not because Bush 1 was a republican, but because he was the candidate that was more likeable. That scared the HELL out of the republicans. Finally the democrats were learning what they had figured out with Reagan. Float a candidate who's likeability is at or greater than the level of his capability and you win the whitehouse. Period. They were scared, they were in trouble, and they knew it, and that's why they persecuted Clinton throughout his 8 year presidency (I guess that was before they decided it was unpatriotic not to support the president, eh?).

Fortunately for them, the democrats are idiots and they didn't learn anything from Clinton because they floated Gore (ok, I'll give 'em that one since he was the VP) with Lieberman - - Lieberman for chrissake! - - as his VP candidate. We've got a wimpy guy who sounds like Alf's dad on the ticket and we expect people to like him well enough to vote for him? And the hell of it is, they might have won simply because the country was wrapped in the euphoria from the Clinton years, except that Gore, like Kerry, ran a dumbassed campaign that had no direction, and he was caught in a lie.

There's another difference. Gore gets caught in a lie, the republicans go nuts with it. Bush gets caught in multiple lies, and the democrats want to be gentlemanly about it so they downplay it.

If you're gonna win a fight, you gotta be willing to hit, and the democrats simply arent' willing to do that.

By not fighting back they've allowed the Republicans to convince the country that morality is impossible without christianity (why else was faith an issue in this election? faith has nothing to do with it. It's amazing how we trumpet freedom of religion, as long as it's christianity in this country).

They've allowed the republicans to convince the country that it's OK to screw up royally as long as you don't change your mind once it's made up. Where I come from that's called being a stubborn asshole, but apparantly once you hit D.C. it's a desireable characteristic.


If the dems want to win the 2008 election they need to find a likeable candidate with a squeaky clean history, and they need to have campaign managers that are competent. Had Kerry had 3 braincells when it came to this election he'd have installed Carville as his campaign manager. Carville is THE reason why Clinton won. He is the Rove of the democrat party. Actually he's smarter than Rove because he manages to kick major electoral ass without lying, cheating, or smearing - something that's tough to do in today's political environment.

So that's what the democrats need to do if they want to win. Will they? Dunno, but I'd be pretty comfortable betting that they won't.

gcbrowni

It's not fair to say people voted Redbecause of religion. I'm sure some did, but not 50 million of them. If exit polling s to be believed, only 22% cited 'values', which could mean anything. (Small Government, orGod speaks to me?)

Why not usurp the traditional Republican areas? Smaller government, lower taxes, and aggressice foreign policy? Those are all old time democratic values, anyways. I'm sure there are a lot of people unhappy with the Republican pandering to the religous; we could swoop in and garner all of them if we could simply convice them that the Dems are the party of lower taxes and lower spending. There's certainly an openening with the current deficit...

__________________
From the day of his birth Gilgamesh was called by name.

smooth

correct.

only the 4 million Rove targeted (the 4 mil that put bush over the top, btw). it's not a republican secret.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Redlemon

Well, if "you" keep calling us the 'liberal elite', isn't the antonym 'conservative mediocre'? What goes around, comes around.

psyday

What's funny is that the billionare liberals in New England play you like an instrument just like the billionare (I can't even call them conservatives, I'll just say Republicans) play their electorate like a instrument.

It's all one in the same.

Irishsean

I never said "Liberal Elite" anywhere...

Lots of people putting words in my mouth today...

__________________
There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances.
Leon Trotsky

aliali

Well, it looks like we aren't really ready for our unity breakfast.

On the issue of #1, which is the most common thing I hear from anti-Bush people, are the Kerry supporters (or anti-Bushites) here really disputing that they think Bush and people who voted for him are stupid?

For the Kerry voters, where do you rank the last several presidents for intelligence? (Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43). How about Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush in 08. Who's smarter there?

Redlemon

Edited to indicate that I was talking generally to the right, not to you specifically. Sorry 'bout that.

kutulu

shakran:

You spoke what I was thinking. The Democrats need to stop being pussies and grow a pair. We never truly went on the attack like we could have. We sat on our asses while terms like flip-flop (which both candidates were responsible for) developed. We need some pitbulls to lead the campaigns.

shakran

Because it wouldn't be honest. Bush has already lowered taxes too much to pay for what the government is paying for. We MUST raise taxes, at least in the short term, until we start running a surplus again. Of course, the logical place to put the increased tax burden would be on the rich who are paying proportionally fewer taxes than anyone else anyway. Of course the instant you suggest such a plan, the rich spend their money like crazy to keep you from getting into a position where they might have to spend money.



The democrats realize that in order to strengthen this country, we have to say things that the country might not want to hear. The republican leadership knows this as well, but they're more interested in gaining and retaining power than they are in what's best for our country.

A 5 year old can tell you that if you cut your income while at the same time dramatically increasing your spending, you will go broke. The republicans and their trickledown theorists would have us believe that this is not true, that in fact the only way to make money is to cut your salary, spend all your reserves, then go out and get an infinite number of loans. Why would the republicans push this? I refuse to believe they're that benightedly stupid. The real reason is because it's what people WANT to believe. They WANT to think the government can flourish without them having to pay anything, and it's politically expedient for the republicans to let them believe that.

Well, I WANT to believe that a jolly fat man lands his sleigh on my roof and gives me cool presents once a year, expecting nothing in return save milk and cookies. Unfortunately, I'm familiar with a concept called reality. Wouldn't it be nice if the vacuous masses would become as familiar with it.

quicksteal

Things I'm tired of hearing:

1.) Bush stole the 2000 election (13% of those polled by Gallup believe this)
2.) Bush stole the 2004 election (10% of those polled by Gallup believe this)
3.) The filthy rich vote Republican--look at the exit polls, and you'll see the opposite.

The truth is, Republicans connect better with the American populace as it is today. Maybe 10-20 years from now, as our country becomes more and more secular, the liberal moral beliefs of the Democrats will be in style. Unfortunately for some, by then the beliefs won't be liberal anymore, so the Democrats will have still more liberal morals.

--I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with being a liberal, but don't expect to win very many elections.

adam

Oh, I've given up on winning national elections. I've drifted over into the "let's take direct action" camp. (Spiking the trees or whatever.) That's what elections like this do -- polarize people.

Dwayne

Ok the reason I think that people wrongly voted for Bush is because they were not informed enough. I believe that NO one who knew all the facts would vote for Bush and im not saying that people who did not vote for Bush new all the facts.

smooth

evidently quite a few voted wrongly for Bush without their knowledge:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=75070

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

quicksteal

I'm not sure I understand. No one who voted for Bush new all the facts, but others who did not know the facts did not vote for him. What do you mean by "all the facts?" Is it that there were certain facts that you know that caused you to vote against him, and that most people didn't know those things? Because I can promise you, there are plenty of "facts" that convinced me to vote for Bush.

Of course the President is not my perfect choice, but after weighing all the "facts", I made my vote. I feel as though that vote was reaffirmed after listening to his first press conference after the election (go to it at www.foxnews.com; it's 2 parts and about 30 minutes long). I got lucky--the issues that I want Bush to press in his second term seem to be the issues that he is the most concerned about as well.

Justsomeguy

I don't understand why people are so forceful in judging others about not voting for the issues. Isn't it a little wrong to say you're voting for the issues? For instance, if a law was proprosed that was going to make me lose 50k a year with it going to minorty groups, I don't think I would support it. I'm sure minority groups would, however. What I mean is, most people that say they vote for the issues do not vote based on what is in the best interest of the government. They vote based on what seems best for them.

Even this aside, use my previous example. Say I do vote based on what I believe is in the best interest of my nation and that law I mentioned above says that I must give up 50k a year, but it will help eliminate 25% of poverty in the nation. So, being the good citizen I am, I do decide to support it. However, what if a side effect of this law is that it will reduce the production of the economy by 40%? While I made what a decision based on what I thought was in the best interest of the nation, I've really harmed the economy and caused alot of people to lose jobs.

It's just my belief that voting on the issue normally means to vote on what will benefit you the best. Or at very most, voting on the issue means to vote on what you feel is the best thing for the nation even though most of us do not have experience or access to information that would allow us to properly conclude what is in the best interest of our country.

On a side note, I think it's fair to say that Bush had some weak policies. Kerry had some weak policies. We did the democratic process, it gave us a president, and I'm sure alot of intelligent people supported both candidates. However, I do not understand why people are so compassionate in putting down the president but lack that same compassion in giving what they can to help make the nation even stronger.

adam

I don't believe supporting the president and his policies will result in a nation I want to live in. Thus, I resist, and plan to keep right on resisting wherever practical.

Irishsean

Word!

__________________
There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances.
Leon Trotsky

mrbuck12000

Its not that fucking difficult...just quite watching CNN, turn off NPr, turn on the race grab your bible, say your prays. Its called dumbing yourself down. Mr rove tells me everything will be fine. He will think for me, he will let me know when i can think, what i can watch, who i can vote for. He will even tell me what i can eat, what kind of drugs i can take. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Uniter my ass!!!

mrb

__________________
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002

Konichiwaneko

These are the things i hate hearing from the left

1) People can't help themselves, they need help. (Most people can help themselves, don't try to be a hero when you don't have to be, if someone knows that they don't have to work because you will do it for them, you better believe 9 out of 10 will abuse that)

2) Omg he's a libertarian, that means he's a REPUBLICAN. (Sigh....just plain sigh. Yes I'm going to vote a republican into the office if only 10 of his policies damage individuality compared to if a democratic plan damages 100. It really is a lesser of two evils situation)

3) The rich, the rich, they get everything! (Yeah, also because they Work. It's not freebees guys. If you have 1000000 dollars, yes it's easy to make money, it's also easy to lose it. The common "well off" in our society is a family making 100k, which is easily obtainable in our society now. Not that it matters though because we assume everyone needs the lifestyle that the affluent has, and thus everything thinks of unreasonable standard of living. George Bush has suplimented my income as much as my clients, and some of them are millionaires. His tax break targetted the group of people who actually earns money for a living. It's the workers that run our economy guys, we don't mind if others try and do as much as they can to have a better life but not by stealing the lifestyle from another person.)

4) To win we have to be even more left! (I really really hope not. Please give me a FDR type Democrat. Yes he introduced what I believe was one of the worst things ever (sociel security), but i loved him. FDR democrats are republicans now, and democrats now...well they are just so far left it's scary.





You can apply this to what I said above, but it's mostly for some of you guys above me

Why do we assume we know what's best?

__________________

Manx

Well ... what can I say? Heading to the far right certainly hasn't hurt the Republicans.

Irishsean

I don't think republicans have really headed farther right, I think they have just expanded and picked up the things that used to be considered "democrat" as democrats moved further and further away from the centerline.

__________________
There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances.
Leon Trotsky