A Bush-supporting ilxor writes...

Hillary is not a man.

(Also, surely it's transparent as to who started this thread, isn't it? There's no need for vitriol.)

Bush has been reelected and realize that your duty is to support your president and your country in these difficult times.

which strikes me as ridiculous;
which strikes me as willful baiting;
which strikes me as which strikes me as disingenuous;
which strikes me as an intentional jab in eye to 45% of the country to the 48% who didn't vote for bush

Yeah, WTF?!?!?

These "difficult times" are precisely why we shouldn't be supporting the president blindly. Also, supporting "my country" also means supporting the 55 million people who voted for Kerry.

It is? I don't know any female ilxors who support Bush. Dee voted for Kerry this time, God bless her.

Okay, then I don't know who this is.

The war in Iraq was the final nail in its coffin.

Well, I for one would love to understand the mentality of all those Bush-voters, and if it's an ilx0r that's a good place to start at least.

Considering what I've seen from the normally logged on Bush supporters who post here I'm surprised at the refrain used in the original question.

After all, no one actually dies in football games, do they?

logged off: what war are we in the middle of fighting? did i miss so,ething?? i thought iraq was basically starting to work out these days, according to the Administration. is there so,ething i don't know about?

What utter tripe. Just becuase it's a war it must be morally ripe so all americans shuld blindly support and obey. What a fucking load of crap.

actually yes sometimes they do sadly, but never mind

So I had some time after work and school to stop by a polling place being worked by a few relatives of mine -- including my mother (I dropped her off early in the morning). I was still having a little difficulty figuring out whom to vote for, so I figured I could hang out at the polling place for awhile. I ended up volunteering my services to help out with the voting. (I had worked the 2000 elections, so basically knew how to handle certain things, and had operated our new electronic voting system earlier this year during the primaries, so knew how to handle others.) After an hour of assisting voter after voter after voter, I came to a momentous realization. As much as I'd griped in the past about the stridency of the media's Democratic Party-loving elite (including Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Susan Sarandon), I realized that our county contained just as many strident "oh, I just want to vote a straight Republican ticket" voters, and for the first time, I felt quite turned off by those people whose party affiliation I had shared not even a year ago. That, combined with the many finer points well made by my Voice of Reason and with realizing that the classical conservatism that first attracted me to the Republican party was, in essence, ancient history, made me realize that I should do what I had never in my entire politically-oriented life dreamed I would ever do -- vote Democratic on the presidential race. So that's what I ended up doing. To my extreme shock and, at the end, relief. For the personalities of the most devoted Republican Party cheerleaders have changed drastically since 2000 for some mysterious reason or another. In 2000, the people I knew in the party were sober, thoughtful, careful. In 2004, the people I saw were loud, brash, and passionate almost to the point of violence, and that scared me, made me shameful.

So... ladies and gents, thus ends one era in my life. I voted for Kerry, and don't think I'm looking back.

-- Dee Logged-Out One (youknowwh...) (webmail), November 3rd, 2004 4:55 AM

howso, ken?

people's responses to this thread seems more telling than logged out's input.

Oh for fuck's sake, what is that supposed to mean? I hate it when people try to turn threads around like that. logged off's initial comment, even if it does seem to be little more than trolling in retrospect, is the focus and raison d'etre of this thread. Just because me and Ed and whoever get angry with such ignorance doesn't mean that we should all start looking at ourselves.

(xpost, YES IT DOES, MARK!)

tidal wave of xposts

i hope dee doesn't feel patronised by all this

i just assumed this was calum again

http://www.taratan.com/images/6puppies.jpg

A Democrat victory and sex on the same fucking day? Oh my!

xposts

1957-1975 to thread.

That's exactly what I just did.. today.

(And I'm guessing "logged off" is actually not a bush supporter, just a fucking troll as usual... "and you all fell for it, like the BLOODY FASCISTS YOU ARE!" [/rik])

(Chris, right now my slogan is "Getting the sand out of America's vagina" but I'm open to suggestions.)

And I'll say this again, Bush barely winning isn't the huge loss. Kerry had a tough job if he'd win, and Bush is only going to drink deeper from his poisoned chalice, as a very good friend told me late last night.

Yesterday was America's failure because of 11 states voting for gay marriage bans. I'm horrified. I'm doubly horrified because of the potential cascade factor that precedent may instill.

So with that, I'll let Dan Quisenberry/logged off/maybe-Roger continue to poo on this thread. Lie Down And Die Goodbye.

(xpost)

Having said that, it's too bad about the vitriol here, although some of the comments make me as angry also. As far as my response to loggedout's comments: my *duty* as such is to love my country and I do--I respect the constitution and the principles upon which it was founded. I respect the *office* of the presidency, not necessarily the president himself. Does it mean I don't question these things? No--I do, I question and challenge my country and government according to my beliefs precisely because I care about America and I want it to be a better country. No matter if I live abroad, I'm always going to be, and feel, American--this happens to be my definition of patriotism and I don't believe that shutting up and supporting the president no matter what is my *duty*. Anyway, others said it better up there, too.

Does it really matter anyway?

Alba - the fact that we had a huge turnout and that Kerry almost won by a hair should he hope all around.. the woman that you saw on BBC is likely the case with 6-digit amount of people in the U.S.

A fake one.

Chuck Eddy, in one of his reviews from years back, explained why he didn't like bands like Iron Maiden in these terms (paraphrasing slightly): that they were idiots dumb enough to worship power because they'd never have any themselves.

I'm not sure even Controversial Colin et al is Calum.. I assumed he was truly long gone, and that the former is just a copycat Calum(?).

No, it's him. A paler shadow, mind you.

This is exactly the way I feel, Sarah.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ

C'mon, gabbneb, cheer up. Most of us aren't going to leave the country, so we need to stay and fight. Fight, not to beat 'them' but fight for what we believe is better for the country. Luckily, IMHO, being better than hypocritical homophobes isn't difficult, but that's not a reason not to show them what true patriotism is.

The Scorpions?

This is not a rational argument, actually, given Republican positions on the death penalty and preemptive military action.

uh, i'm not sure how this response is apposite to my comments

`Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?' asked another of they jurymen.

`No, they're not,' said the White Rabbit, `and that's the queerest thing about it.' (The jury all looked puzzled.)

`He must have imitated somebody else's hand,' said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

`Please your Majesty,' said the Knave, `I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end.'

`If you didn't sign it,' said the King, `that only makes the matter worse. You MUST have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man.'

Yeah, I know. A lot of people have no natural home in politics. In a way, when you're a left-liberal and you're only struggle is whether to vote with your conscience for some minority candidate or be pragmatic and go with the centre-left guy pandering to the right, you have it pretty easy. Most of our populations are made up of those who side with the major right wing or centre-right party on many things (say, immigration) and with the major left wing or centre-left party on many others (say, healthcare spending). It's hard. No wonder people end up disenfranchised from politics or voting for nutters like Bush.

I never thought I'd say this, because I naively believed the high turnout of voters actually meant a high turnout of informed voters, hence more scrutiny in the white house. Let's just say yesterday was so sobering, that I'm hungover right now.. without ever having drunk anything alchoholic.

*puke* *sob*

and the fans (voters) would know every detail about the players (canidates) records and care about their actual performance not their presentation.

(that's what Nader was saying last night too.)

There are all sorts of colourful characters on this board with differing views and if we're not allowed to express these then I pity those of you who threaten violent actions against Bush-supporting Ilxors - you're not playing fair and the whole attitude stinks.

Also - is there anything more banal than nitpicking at every single sentence in someone's post? Does it even matter which words they used to voice their opinion? These are schoolboy tactics to say the least.
I'm kind of ashamed by ILX today.

I think people are saying that the person is unlikely to be the American voter they claim to be, because they use the word 'match' for a football game, which is not US English.

logged out is not an american. No american would say "match" instead of "game" or "captain" instead of "coach". People guessing this is Calum are probably right.

-- Alex in SF (clobberthesauru...), November 3rd, 2004.

No phony unity, thanks.

I think that the problem which Alba states above about the fact that each political party has a set of policies, some of which the voter agrees with and some they do not should make us explore other systems of government. Sure, the system of democratically voting for representatives is better than the alternatives which have been tried e.g. monarchies and dictatorships, but I am not convinced that it is the best possible system and I am not convinced that we can't find alternatives if we try hard enough.

Watch out Logged Out! Last night I was just posting that I wasn't Anti-Bush and was attacked. You are saying you are Pro-Bush. That's more extreme than me.

!!!JOKE!!!

Maybe it's SGS and she's scared Markelby will kick her in the face

!!!JOKE!!!

EAT. HOT. DEATH. MOTHERFUCKER!!!!

x-post broad church innit?

If I were an unscrupulous leader I might think "well, I get unconditional support when we are in difficult times or fighting a war... I should make people feel that times are always difficult and we are always fighting a war, and then they'll always support me" I would have no incentive to end a war or make times easier, kind of.

I don't want to sound too sappy here, but it was still worth it. It still was.

I have not read every single one of these posts, so this might be redudndant, but:
Bush was not reelected. This is the first time he has been elected. Previously, he was appointed, much to the chagrin of half the voting public.

Amen, Nabisco - and I understand the need to let off a bit of steam, I really do. I feel nothing but absolute despair when one of the most unpopular presidents in American history can still win a second term.
However, the day I see this kind of behaviour on ILX brings me even more despair! Biting people's heads off for voicing an opinion rather than maybe listening to or challenging what they say (apart from dissecting their arguments into tiny little pieces until the original meaning is lost beyond all recognition) is cowardly and lowers the tone for anyone who ever routed for their own cause.
No-one's gone home, there is no Martini, please don't start showing up the Democrats now. Whether you think the vote was fair or not, there is still such a thing as being a poor loser. Lowering yourselves to the level of the opposition by spouting insults and vitriol will only show yourselves up.

I said a troll in the classic sense, meaning a controversial stance designed to provoke responses.

Bush supporters probably don't want to hear the Kerry supporters whining either but since this board has a liberal majority, that's all we're going to hear about tonight, and while I'd have preferred Kerry (or better still, Nader) to get in, I really don't mind hearing what the ILX opposition has to say.

(mega xpost)

Michael: you're absolutely right. I think over the course of the year your more isolated coastal types spent a whole lot of time thinking about how much their stereotypes of the middle bits of the country were true. And I think a lot of them decided that no, surely they weren't that "bad," surely things had gotten to the point where etc. ... And now for a lot of them those stereotypes have been (still wrongly, I think) confirmed. I feel like some people out here were watching television and imagining the middle of the country and suddenly went "Oh my god, they really are bucktoothed gun-toting hillbillies out there!" Which is of course bullshit, and I don't know why I'm talking about it here, except that the process interests me. (Several people recently have started asking me all kinds of questions about what the midwest is like!)

But it's hardly the sort of controversial statement that should incite threats of physical violence. Especially when the poster has expressed reasons why they believe what they do, however misguided.

OTM, it basically only confirmed my prejudices about the ideas of ever moving to the south, or back to the southwest, or anywhere besides the places I am already interested in being. I feel like outside of these little bubbles it's like a completely different universe, or something, a universe where my own mother has apparently lived long enough that she thought "he is smug and looks annoying" was a good enough reason to vote against a person whose policies might NOT have been a total middle finger to all of her kids and friends back home.

This may not be a bad time to start exploring my tenuous Southern roots.

no, they just voted more. 80% of Americans live in metropolitan areas.

It just struck me as odd, maybe it says something more about the country in general, but to have a president elected twice, once with well under 50% support and the second time with just 50%?

xpost Alba we are not Stalinists, we will not colonize the peasantry with our proletariat ways.

A divided world.

I just don't understand how the divide can be so so wide.

60.1 Indiana
61.2 Texas
61.9 Alaska
62.2 Kansas
62.5 Alabama
62.9 North Dakota
65.6 Oklahoama
66.7 Nebraksa
68.5 Idaho
69.0 Wyoming
70.9 Utah

State where Kerry got more than 60% of the vote:

62.1 Massachusetts
89.5 DC

The day I accept Bush is the day I roll my nuts through a mangle.

I haven't accepted the smug warmongering arrogant lying pig-headed fuckstick for the past four years; why should I start now?

Only liberals shall pay taxes.
Only liberals shall serve in ground combat units.
Only liberals will be used for frontal assaults
of hostile positions.
Only liberals shall stay after school.
All liberals shall be paid minimum wage."

I loves me some Freepers. They're complaining that Bushco aren't right enough! Somebody on Power of Nightmares made the claim that Cheney, Rumsfeld et al have a deep and profound hatred of liberals - more so than their hatred for Saddam.

what this election has taught me: I'm a real, total, complete, and less repentant than ever snob. I have spent most of my adult life attempting to identify with, sympathize with, not dislike middle America--the part of the country I come from, to a degree, though I grew up in suburban Minneapolis, which ain't now nor ever has been cow country in my experience. that's all gone now. I honestly, right now, feel like I have nothing in common with the people who elected Bush and voted no on gay marriage, not one little bit. early on, when Kerry's step-down was fresh, I was righteously angry and wanted to start devoting more of my time to the Democratic party and/or something, anything, that would maybe help alleviate what I saw and see as a grossly stupid mistake on the part of the country's electorate. The truth is that I can't possibly conceive of spending my time trying to convince people who believe the Bible is truer than actual proved science that Bush is all the bad things I think (and the public record demonstrates) he is. It feels like I'd be hitting my head against a brick wall and I don't have the patience for it. And I feel really, really, really horrible about that, because I want nothing more than to believe I could make a difference. And maybe I can and maybe I will and maybe this will all change in a week or so. But right now, and maybe forever, no.

burn with flame if dude burns it's no troll. otherwise troll.

I hate you and I feel violent towards you. Becauser you're logged off it's easier to see you as a thing rather than a person. Which is about right as you're certainly less of a human being than the other 48%.

(If you're American what are you doing up before 7am?)

Mark I see your point about the loggedoffness depersonalizing everything, and in my opinion whoever it is would have the guts to stand behind their vote and not hide behind logging off, but that doesn't take away my desire to rise above reactionary tactics (e.g. of my own government) by trying to be reasonable and get an actual answer on the points above from this person. I figure it's worth a try, even though I'm angry about the result too.

But you know, you can do something about the causes you're concerned about if you really feel so strongly about them. Whether it's gay rights, help for the poor, education...whatever. You can join organizations and DO things. How many people on here who are sounding off so loudly are prepared to put some time aside from buying CDs and surfing the internet to DO SOMETHING?

Markleby's reaction was v. odd.

I hardly agree with everything Bush says. Do you really agree with everything Kerry says? When Kerry says he is personally against gay marriage, do you agree with that? No, for most people voting for one candidate comes down to one or two key issues and a philosophical gut feeling. My gut feelings are that I know better how to spend my money than the government does, and that a government\\\'s key responsibility is to protect its citizens.

(sorry)

Stop hiding behind your gender.

Do you really agree with everything Kerry says?

No, I didn't, but I actively disagreed with 100% of everything Bush said.

a government\\\'s key responsibility is to protect its citizens.

Yeah, Bush did a great job of that...YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

and their use of the english language is far too precise to be a republican american

It's not that I thought John Kerry was the ideal answer (though, of course, he did serve his country in Vietnam -- unlike Bush, has a brain -- unlike Bush, espoused a more inclusive foreign policy -- unlike Bush), but more that FOUR YEARS OF BUSH HAS RESULTED IN NOTHING BUT DAMAGE. I'm also INTENSELY CONCERNED about Bush's propensity to blur the lines between church and state (take your faith based initiatives and shove them up your ass, you fuckin' flat-earther!)

Moreover, the Bush administration blew off initial warnings prior to September 11th, 2001. Their audacity to treat the issue like a political football sickens me to my very core.

"Oh yes, we need a football president,
we need a man like Ford!
we need a man with a head shaped like
a great big pumpkin gourd (BIG! BIG! BIG!)" - Firesign Theatre

lol

**Bush voters**

(also Alex in NYC OTM, obv)

xpost

Maybe once the democrats finish wiping those "sub human" republicans off the planet they could move onto those Bush supporting Jew bastards in Israel. You'll have Al Qaeda eating out of your hands in no time and the world will be nice and safe.

Enlightening thread. Keep it up.

Maybe I took it too far but threatening people with violence and dehumanising them for their political beliefs (no matter how misguided) is a slippery slope in a so-called democracy.

(well done for being so level-headed, Onimo. Should I infer that you don't give a shit about the planet-murdering cunts who've just been elected?)

Israel is pro-Bush. If you believe, as some people seem to do on this thread, that those who support Bush should be treated as sub human then you can't qualify it with "Except for Israel because I don't want to be seen as anti-semitic. I only hate conservative Christians so I couldn't possibly be a religious bigot"

Don't think for a second I'm defending the views of right wing conservatives, nothing could be further from the truth.
I'm defending their right to *be* right wing conservatives. That's what democracy is all about.

You advocate violence towards and dehumanise those who disagree with your political beliefs. You're not a shitload away from it.

Onimo, I see your point (if one dehumanises Bush voters in the USA, coherence would demand that one does the same to Bush-supporting israelis), but I think I still have a problem with the way you framed it, it still sort of reads like you're throwing two different (and both reprehensible, don't get me wrong) forms of hatred in the same bucket.

I can understand your shock over some of the comments made above, but, y'know, it's pretty clear that they're coming from a gut level of rage and such be discarded as such (and, y'know, the posters making them are well known for their respective brands of semi tongue-in-cheek vitroil anyway, it's just ususally they're directed at Calum or Shania Twain or something.) And really, the original poster's attitudes (logging out, not adressing the real arguments made) don't help, either.

tons of xposts- I could basically delete this and just say steve OTM

If I meet logged off I'll kick her in the face for destroying the planet. The fucking bitch

you're the hateful bigot, you've already proved it. See me as some kind of moral policeman with a grudge.

I hate you and I feel violent towards you. Becauser you're logged off it's easier to see you as a thing rather than a person. Which is about right as you're certainly less of a human being than the other 48%.

Fuck them, that makes them sub-human in my book.

That wasn't projecting, that was quoting. What bit of that *isn't* dehumanising someone and threatening them with violence?

(I've been gradually calming down, you may have noticed, and I'll gladly and shame-facedly apologise for the first of those points. Sub-human, well, it's just a word, a term of contempt - if it suits your nazi fantasies to read shit into it, knock yourself out.)

Rot in hell!

neville chamberlain to thread

can hate be great? can hate be good? etc.

You've brightened up my afternoon, PJ.

I didn't say "hating" - I said "advocating violence and dehumanising" - people can hate whoever the fuck they like, it's how they let that hate govern their behaviour that's important.

I didn't say "at all costs" anywhere, and I don't have much respect for what America and its president consider to be democracy. But I won't accept that threatening people with violence if they vote against you is a valid political standpoint, especially given all the democrat whining about voter intimidation at the polls.

hehe haha

http://www.asiabusiness.com/sl/wilfred/images/image3.jpg

Believe it or not Alex, some people in this country don't see much evidence that John Kerry would do much, if any, better. In fact, some think he might actually make things worse.

(*Christ, how the fuck do you spell that?!??!?!)

Two fellas tying the knot.

vote for me next time! fight war on terror by photoshopping osama's face onto nude chixxors to dissolve his terror tactics into ridicule (every new "tape" he makes will have a nude gyrating girl superimposed onto his body). So much Terror is he gonna cause, then!!

Once again, I'm not suggesting that Kerry was the messiah, but WE KNOW HOW BAD BUSH IS -- WE'VE SEEN THE DAMAGE HE CAN DO -- WE KNOW WHAT ELSE HE'D LIKE TO DO. Between certain catastrophe and the chance of a better situation -- however remote -- I'd assume rational people would choose the latter.

It's not that I was wrong. It's that there a far more pathetically stupid people in the United States than I'd expected.

can i just point out that this isn't conclusive - that 48% of the voters want Bush to have nothing to do with US govt. All it 'concludes' is that Bush is president of a divided nation, almost half of whom disagree profoundly with his actions.

Kerry 2004 figures would've *slayed* Bush 2000's.

There's plenty of time to get back to the best of our enlightenment rational selves in the coming months. Right now it's good to see some righteous fire emanating from the left.

that would be awesome

It's that there a far more pathetically stupid people in the United States than I'd expected.

When it comes to Bush vs. Kerry, many people looked at it as the devil you know vs. the devil you do know. Kerry apparently didn't provide a compelling enough reason to think that he offered a better "chance" of improvement. Further, your insistence of certain catastrophe isn't universal opinion--is this all a result of ignorance, willful or otherwise, or are there legitimate reasons to see things differently? You seem adamant in claiming that there's virtually no legimate alternate vision to your own.

Finally, if you didn't know how utterly retarded and uninterested in politics the American electorate is, you've been living under a rock.

(damn, my skillz are faltering)

xposts

If you've been kicked hard in the crotch, you know it hurts. You're given the choice of being kicked hard in the crotch again or going with someone who may not kick you in the crotch at all, but indeed might potentially give you an ice pack to soothe your aching crotch. Would you choose the latter?

Finally, if you didn't know how utterly retarded and uninterested in politics the American electorate is, you've been living under a rock.

I'm aware of it, but it's not like these have been your average four years. You'd think at least one event in the past four years would've slapped some sense into the voting public.

Yeah, you'd think that at least one event in the past four years would make visceral sense to people. It's exactly the same excuse that the GOP was making after Clinton got re-elected in 1996.

Big of you, to threaten a woman with a kick in the teeth.

I don't know if anyone still cares, but this sounds like Calum to me -- he's impersonating a woman and then inviting criticism so he can tell himself that WE'RE the sexist ones, not him.

Don, through your posts you seem to maintain this proposition that given a choice between two candidates, Kerry didn't offer a sufficiently compelling (or even a sufficiently different option) to woo them.

Is this really the story of '04, though? Is it really the case that voters were equally prepared to vote either way but Kerry just wasn't clinching the deal? What about the huge evangelical and white Protestant turnout, which appears to have been a major factor? Did any of these people contemplate a Kerry vote, even had he been sufficiently "compelling"? And what about the deep anti-Bush passions on the other side, which mobilized many as well (but obv. not quite enough?). I really don't think this election can be characterized as one marked by lukewarm choices one way or the other. I think this was an election, regardless of the shortcomings each side saw in its own candidate, we were willing to look past that to keep the other side from power. I saw this not just at the expected levels of party activists, but campaigning on the streets of PA among ordinary voters. By and large, convictions and passions ran deep this time around, and the grey, swingable types, while not absent, were not nearly as significant as in previous elections.

I don't really think this is the "story of '04"; what I'm saying is that certainly, 30-40% of voters see the world in a partisan manner. Part of my point is that partisans of both stripes are simply not going to find that the Bush was an unmitigated disaster or that John Kerry offered legitimate reasons why he'd might not actually be worse for the job. And partisans on both sides regard those legitimate reasons as either willfully ignorant or deceitful. So while Alex is frustrated and dejected with regards to the stupidity of the electorate, it seems at least part of that could be attributed to a partisan worldview.

As for the non-partisans, yes, I'm saying that Kerry's message didn't resonate enough. His message that he was going to offer a better "chance" didn't overcome the fear that he was going to make things worse, I suppose. Is this strictly the basis of the Holy Roller/WASP vote? I don't know. I don't think the election is a summation of lukewarm choices, but I can tell that I know many more Republicans than Democrats, and virtually all of them are not happy with Bush. I don't know exactly why each of them still voted for Bush, but more than one told me that they "knew" Kerry would be even worse.

That's what my mom said as well, even though she doesn't like Bush. It's pretty frustrating.

it's going to be very difficult to deter people from viewing it like that unfortunately

Sorry, Ned, but it's indeed the way I see it. If you voted for Bush, you're an evil slobbering fool. Simple as that.

The time for being constructive was Tuesday, and that didn't work out. And it's true in that it's certainly the way I feel about it.

Equating 'followers' with 'those who voted for him' down the line is dangerous. Not everyone who voted for Kerry did so because *they* were sheep.

Tough luck, Alex. We're all allowed to express our opinions....and we have four more years of listening to Bush stumble over his words, so I think it's only fair.

I agree, though. "Evil" is a term that should be reserved for comic books. "Stupid", however, is entirely applicable in this case.

I didn't say that it was. But, I firmly believe that if you voted for Bush -- you're STUPID. Sorry, but that's the way I feel about it.

Such as?

"Hi, you voted for Bush? You pathetic stupid moron. You should be smart like me and vote against his successor."

"Thanks, you have deeply persuaded me." *votes again for GOP, who assures them they are not stupid*

(A simplification, but representative of an attitude not conducive to helping.)

Yesterday, I signed off ILX earlier for fear of doing what I appear to be doing now....alienating people. I really am profoundly depressed and upset by this election, so I clearly shouldn't be airing my grievances here. Time to check out then.

Bye.

Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%)

The US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%)

The International Criminal Court (66%)

The treaty banning land mines (72%)

The Kyoto Treaty on global warming (51%)

Only 41% knew that Bush favors increased defense spending, while 49% incorrectly assumed he wants to keep it the same (29%) or cut it (20%)

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mirror/nov2004/1/0/000ADF94-E181-1189-B6E080BFB6FA0000.jpg

Bye for now.

Also, personally I think you're a crackerjack poster and I would hate to see you leave.

Ned, I want think level-ly, but I think everybody here needs to realize something: Bush is not president because of thoughtful conservatives. Bush is president because 134,000 people in my state are afraid of two guys fucking. That's the reality, and when I get the opportunity to call any of those people bigots to their faces, I will.

Actually, I do think you're right. (I sure hope so!)

when I get the opportunity to call any of those people bigots to their faces, I will.

And have you? (I'm not being flippant, nor am I daring you to, I leave that kind of thing to Roger.)

'The Republican South has created some formidable election math for the Democrats. With the South in the pocket of the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, the 2008 Democratic nominee will need about 70 percent of electoral votes available in the rest of the country to win the White House. Some observers believe GOP triumphs in the South have created the conditions under which the Republicans can remain as the nation's majority party for many years.'

Now, let's, just for the sake of argument, call a party which advocates repression of homosexuals, pursuit of inflammatory pre-emptive wars, and disregard for imminent environmental disaster a stupid party. I know that doesn't sound kind or fair, but just bear with me for a moment. Stupid policies that appeal to stupid people. The Democratic party, by this math, can only survive if it finds an even greater level of stupidity on which to campaign. Let's see, the Republicans' policies will destroy the world... we can do better than that, we can destroy the world and the moon!

Do what you want. But I think that might not be the best approach to get someone to rethink their position -- and wouldn't that be the best result?

If the question becomes the pursuit of power straight up, it could happen. I would like to think it would not, but the more time goes on the more it seems clear to me that's what -- in a different context and a different setting -- one Mr. T. Blair has done.

Not to mention a general lack of education and ignorance all around about the outside world. There might be exceptions to this, but I think they are a tiny minority. Also, since that better-informed minority still votes against their own interest, I don't know what to call it besides stupid.

If you will only ever deal in absolutes you will only ever get absolute reactions.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/graphics/march96_hammer.jpg

xpost

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/science-fiction/jailu/images2/jailu1221a.jpg

Any fundamentalist preacher ANYWHERE could have said the above.

(xpost)

Uh, yeah. That's probably true Ned. And I can take your quotes out of context and make you sound like Mussolini. What's your point?

Any fundamentalist preacher ANYWHERE could have said the above.

exactly

no, it's how we exercise power. we're all chastened because of the supposed turnout of all these people we find valueless. are we just going to believe that there are more of them than us? or are we going to demonstrate how many of us there are and not wait four years to do it? we need to chasten them.

My point is simply that if you want to become a monster in battling with monsters, well done. Momus, I'm sure, would make some comment about myself and himself -- or myself and Calum if he wishes -- to counter that. Rather, I acknowledge it. Can you acknowledge it in turn? Are you quite happy to be monstrous? At least Gabbneb admits it's not about morality but about power now.

What will effect change? What will effect a shift in belief that translates in wider acceptance and political approval? What will shift what is seen to be dominant to the margins? There is no absolute answer. But the strength of conviction needed need not mean replication of that which annoys and aggravates. Can perfection be achieved? I would strongly doubt it. But the attempt can still be made.

About twenty years back, my father would have been dismissed by you as a bigot. Someone to hate and fight against, someone to only attack. He voted proudly for Reagan. His views were to the right in many ways. And now? He voted in 2000 for Nader. In 2004, for Kerry. He did this not by being attacked, but by considering what was said to him by others, what was presented to him that appealed to his sense of thinking things over, of concluding what was best for his country based on what was presented.

He didn't do this because supporters of Nader and Kerry came up to him and said "You're a damned stupid idiot if you don't vote for (pick your candidate) and you're not worth talking to if you do. But I'll love you a lot if you agree with me OFF THE BAT, and only then will you have value." I strongly suspect this approach wouldn't work with many others either. If somebody on the right tried this argument with me, then I would be completely insulted and angered. Why does the fact you want to try that give you the free pass?

Assume minds will never be changed and you will get your wish. Have fun.

That should be 'don't' at the end, excuse me.

Do you really think that I *haven't* tried to talk rationally to people I disagree with? I thought I had established enough cred on ILX to get past that, apparently not.

(x-post)

(and then there's teh gays, obv)

(A WINNER IS NOT ME)

What is the appropriate way for a moderate nihilist to register disgust? I've tried vengeful sighing but that doesn't seem to be working.

My point was not that *all* Bush voters are bigots, but that enough of them were to tilt the scales. The turnout in my state was largely driven by the organized drive by churches to support the anti-gay ballot measure amending the Ohio Constitution. Had that ballot measure been absent, I believe that Kerry would have almost certainly won our state.

Assuming this is true (and the scientific community is split on it, or at least on humankind's influence on it), how would it be prevented? Kyoto? The protocol rejected 95-0 by the Senate while Bill Clinton was in the hotseat?

I agree that many of Bush's domestic environmental policies are harmful to the local environments, but at a global level I don't see the point in him pursuing a ratification of Kyoto when it'll never get through the Senate.
That said, his warm words about reducing CO2 emissions as a percentage of GDP are a bit of a cop-out. In effect it would mean America could continue to raise emissions as long as GDP growth was faster.
He does spout some awful bullshit about "listening to the science" when what he really means is listening to political scientific advisors who are as influenced as he is by the major polluting industries.

Getting even further off topic, I can't quite get my head round the emission trading part of Kyoto. It seems to me the big polluters can carry on polluting as long as they give some 3rd world holes a bit of cash to take the rap for them. Doesn't that leave the overall emission level *exactly* the same?

(xpost)

Split? A handful of right-wing funded scientist doesn not make a split. The vast majority of scientists and scientific research supports the theory of global warming. Be careful to listen to scientists, not just the couple that the right-wing press champion.

I grab my hat and I
grab my shoes
Tonight I'm gonna hit
the streets and cruise

Down the main strip and
check it out
With those schoolgirls
a hangin' around

Now I'm a sucker for a pretty face
I don't care if she's in leather or lace
cause I'm just lookin' for a little kiss

Chorus:
I want action tonight
satisfaction all night
You've got the love I need tonight

Long legs and short skirts
These girls hit me where it hurts

I can't wait to get my hands on them
I won't give up until they give in

Now I'm not lookin' for a love that lasts
I need a shot and I need it fast
If I can't have her, I'll take her and make her

Chorus, solo

Hey, sweetheart, slide on in here
No, not in the front, jump in the back
Why?
Cause there's something back there I want to show ya
I want action tonight
Satisfaction all night
Ah, come on honey, I wasn't that bad!
Oh, well

Chorus out

(xpost argh)

Ah, come on honey, I wasn't that bad!
Oh, well

that line is genius.

I no longer live in the US but still feel (or felt) it was home. The ideals of the US, however much it failed to live up to them, were the most inclusive and optimistic of any. Now, and over the past few years it ahs not felt like this is the country I grew up in, that shaped me, inspired me and made me who I am.

Yes, right now I'm shellshocked, angry, depressed and fearful. I don't feel comfortable coming back to the US now having to be fingerprinted and retina scanned (is that happening yet?) I hate seeing how US policies have been and are radicalizing Muslims around the world and in my country. I hate feeling this powerless abt an election that affects me and many around the world. I hate knowing that homophobia played a part in Bush's reelection. I'm depressed that so many feel for whatever reason that he should continue to hold power.

Even so, I cannot no matter what behave in as ugly a manner as I believe the folks in power do - even in rhetoric/metaphor to talk about kicking ppls faces in or killing 'em or arrgh

I give up. I understand the frustration but I'm tired.

For people to start voting Democrat again, we'd have to re-introduce Marxist and socialist ideas into the political debate in a credible way. Now, I'm a Marxist and I do believe Marxism will return during the 21st century. But not in America.

HOWEVER there is a way the Democrats can get behind a compelling issue and return to power. Alas, it's not very pleasant. It's the 'Day After Tomorrow' scenario. If an environmental disaster more horrific than 9/11 happens, and the Dems convincingly play the green card, power is theirs for as long as the crisis lasts.

(From the recent BBC page)

I voted for Bush because I a run a larger corporation that needs him in office. Without the Bush administration's alterations of previously existing law, my company would not be able to make such large profits. The administration has provided the necessary loop holes in environmental and fair competition laws. They have allowed us to exploit the intent of the law without fear of prosecution.
J Black, Atlanta, GA

Anyone who voted for Bush -- particularly in light of the past four years of xenophobia, violence and cold hard pig-headed arrogance, that's affected not just the US but THE ENTIRE WORLD -- IS stupid. That's all there is to it.

(J Black = Jack Black = James Blount no wait)

xpost

http://www.buddycom.com/dinos/images/trexruns.gif

http://brt.uoregon.edu/cyberschool/history/images2/froosevelt3.jpg

vs.

http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/gga_cart/pres41.gif

Haha :D

But he started wars and told wads of lies. Actions like that have nothing to do with party history.

Third: does the former Cult bassist not see any new mess coming?

'Paysan' doesn't really translate as 'peasant'. It just means the low-earning rural population.

Yeah, I trust people enough that I don't think such a thing can go on forever - the more the working class sinks into poverty the harder it will be to buy them off with bogeymen.

But 'the low-earning rural population' is one of the definitions of peasant in English!

It also happens to be an insult in English, which it isn't in French, and that's what makes it funny. But the fact that 'peasant' is an insult in English doesn't show us that the French are backward -- rather the reverse. Someone posted a comment on my blog yesterday saying we shouldn't think France is better off than the US, because:

'In France, centre-right Chirac will almost certainly be followed by hard-right Nicolas Sarkozy. And Sarkozy is getting scarier by the minute. He has just published a book called "La Religion, La République et l'Espérance", basically outing himself as a committed Catholic who wants to change France's 1905 law on secularity and the state. In other words he's playing the same game as Bush. And this guy will very probably be the next president!'

My response: Sarkozy's new fervour for Catholicism is a calculated political move. He knows that, as a Jew, he will encounter some resistance and lose some presidential votes. His Catholic stance might make back those votes and regain that ground. And if you tell me this betokens European anti-semitism, let me remind you that the US has never had a Jewish president, as France may soon have, and that even the appearance of a Jewish Vice President on the Democratic ticket was seen as controversial during the 2000 election.

(xpost)

An article in Le Canard enchaîné says Sarkozy has a Hungarian father and that his mother is the daughter of a Jewish immigrant from Salonica. The article doesn't say whether his grandmother is Jewish, which would make him Jewish under Talmudic law.

US as 'The Universal' US as 'The Other'
Peace War
Urban Rural
Information Prayer
Intelligent irony Moronic authenticity
Electronic baroque Fake Folk
Surplus Deficit
Centre Right
Gulf war 'never happened' Gulf War never stopped
Selling things Killing people
Globalism Imperialism
Blow jobs Blowing self up
'Irrational exuberance' Irrational terror
Tort Law Torture
Dot commers Bible bashers
Austin Powers Naked power
Cocaine Anthrax
Invention Religion
Lara Croft John Ashcroft
Tomb Raider Grave Maker
Tomahawk and Cruise United and Delta
Reviving the 1970s Reviving the 1670s
Lump in presidential pants Lump on presidential back
Ken Starr v. lax morals Bin Laden v. lax morals
Stereolab Mobile chemical weapons labs
Camp Camp Bravo
Internet Internets
Disintermediation Misunderestimation
Coders Soldiers
Boffins Coffins

This is almost a Prodigy lyric circa 1996.

The IQ numbers were originally attributed to the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations", though they do not appear in the current edition. The tests and data were administered via the Raven's APT, and the The Test Agency, one of the UK's leading publishers and distributors of psychometric tests. This data has been published in the Economist and the St. Petersburg Times, though this does not mean it should be taken as fact. Though the data does correlate somewhat to IQ of students per state based on SAT/ACT data, though this would be biased for those that had completed a high school education. Someone has also taken 2000 census data on percentage of state residents that have earned a college degree and used that to compare the voting in the 2000 election, it seems to correlate well. Someone sent me a table showing average income per state, and how they voted as well.

Some people have written me saying that this is a hoax, I am unsure if it is, someone did a list like this in the 2000 election, I found it interesting, but moreso this time, as people knew exactly what they were getting into. My powers of fact checking dwindle in the face of such pillars of journalistic integrity as the Economist and St. Petersburg Times. Needless to say, as I stated above, the data is in question, but it's still an interesting correlation that is very plausible. This wasn't posted as an elitest diatribe, as i said, I just found it interesting.

momus last week / momus this week

this rolling stone article heralds the mainstream american acceptance of postmodern discourse / stereolab mobile chemical weapons labs

aesthetic distgust / eugenics

The concept of 'caveats' escapes you.

Don't look now but there's one man too many in this room and i think it's you. I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it.

Since artificial intelligence is the best source of information about intelligence, I asked an AI program called Azile. The conversation went like this:

Tell me if my IQ is high or low?
DO YOU WISH THAT YOUR IQ IS HIGH OR LOW?
I wish it is high.
DO YOU THINK I CARE THAT YOU WISH IT IS HIGH?
No.
WELL, WHY NOT, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE?
Why don’t I think you care that I wish that my IQ is high?
DO YOU REALLY THINK SO, MOMUS? WELL BIG DEAL.

"Do I have a high IQ?"
"MY BEAVER HAS TUSKS"

Tell me if my IQ is high or low?
WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOUR IQ IS HIGH OR LOW?
Well, I don't know until you tell me
OH, YOU DON'T KNOW UNTIL I TELL YOU! WHY NOT?
I don't think I would do anything special either way.
YOU DO TOO THINK YOU WOULD DO ANYTHING SPECIAL EITHER WAY.
ok then
JUST OKAY?
sure
SURE?
yes
MANY GEEKS HAVE MILD INSOMNIA.

I think this sums the events of the last week up quite nicely.

I could only imagine it said in a Groucho voice, but that may only be how my brain is wired.

What, this? Thanks!

realize that your duty is to support your president and your country in these difficult times

Somehow "logged off" did not conceive that sometimes the duty of supporting your country does not include supporting your president. Strange to say, I am absolutely sure that tens of millions of Bush supporters who made this argument in 2004, renounced this putative duty after Obama beat McCain.

I think we can let it go at this point tho.

very glad that non-military ppl finally seem to have stopped saying "our commander in chief"

under present circumstances, that's much too scary a phrase to contemplate for long