Sometimes It's Nice To Be Wrong

Originally posted by Bags:
Wait, isn't that exactly what those southern and midwestern voters are trying to do – tell the whole country what's right and wrong based on their beliefs, religion and assumptively superior morality?

i see it more as a rejection of what they are told they are supposed to think. ;)

I think there's more push on *what to think* from the conservatives. Just my view, but being told "no one should do this" seems more restrictive and controlling than "people should be allowed to do this."

Oh yeah, unless you count semi-automatic weapons. That's true, libs are telling them "you're not allowed to have that semi-automatic weapon to protect your home."

See, in the end, both parties are doing the exact same damn thing.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
believe it or not, people in the south and midwest do think about things like that. they do not want californians or northeast liberal elites telling them what's right and what's wrong.

This is the difference between 70,000 votes in Ohio, and the Dems have to take the abuse of being intellectually elitists, as opposed to 70,000 votes the other way where we intellectually elitists would be doing the same to the moral elitists on the right. I'm quite certain that the Repubs would be all over Karl Rove and his strategy of staying way to the right had Kerry won, just the same. The questions would be the same - where did the Repubs go wrong?

I will say this though: San Francisco and Mass did what they felt was right for their constituency. They were never out actively campaigning for Gay marraige in every place in the nation much the way the President has said he will introduce a contitutional amendment banning gay marraige in this country, so be careful who you accuse of telling the other side what's right and what's wrong.

One sides morals elitism is not too far different from one sides intellectual elitism. One side just happened to be the winner of this election, effectively by 70,000 votes in Ohio.

Originally posted by Bags:
tell[ing people]what's right and wrong based on [one's] beliefs, religion…

isn't this really what law is all about?

Originally posted by Bags:
I think there's more push on *what to think* from the conservatives. Just my view, but being told "no one should do this" seems more restrictive and controlling than "people should be allowed to do this."

maybe. . .but again, we haven't been talking about that. we're talking about how steamed the left is that people voted for bush. the "how could so many people vote for bush" crowd.

but, come on, the "people should be allowed to do this" statement is also false…the democrats say that, but it's real application is that people should be allowed to do this, but only if it doesn't interfere with something else. people should be allowed to pray, but not in school, the park in front of city hall, on any federal land, blah blah blah. . .people should be allowed to speak their minds, but only if it agrees with mine. needless to say, both are just as insidious and damaging to this country.

do both parties push orthodoxy among it's denizens, of course. it just turns out that in this election, republicans were able to "turn out the base" more effectively than democrats. and the democrats are peeved.

Originally posted by vansmack:
This is the difference between 70,000 votes in Ohio, and the Dems have to take the abuse of being intellectually elitists, as opposed to 70,000 votes the other way where we intellectually elitists would be doing the same to the moral elitists on the right. I'm quite certain that the Repubs would be all over Karl Rove and his strategy of staying way to the right had Kerry won, just the same. The questions would be the same - where did the Repubs go wrong?

One sides morals elitism is not too far different from one sides intellectual elitism. One side just happened to be the winner of this election, effectively by 70,000 votes in Ohio.

well, if bush had lost, i don't think that moral values would have been the reason. iraq would have been the reason, and republicans would have been all up in arms about whether going into iraq was right or wrong. talk to any pundit, pollster, or anyone who followed this election - moral values was never an issue, nor brought up until voting took place. the closest either candidate really came to talking about moral values was whether or not kerry was a flip-flopper, or who would make a better war-time leader.

for the record. . this constitutional amendment on gay marriages is stupid. it's not the federal government's role to dictate the private matters and affairs of people, but rather the state's and the people that reside therein.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
. . .people should be allowed to speak their minds, but only if it agrees with mine.

Huh, where is this happening? I think if you compare the campaigns – the Kerry camp's treatment of protesters (to stand in front of them so they don't get news coverage) versus the Bush camp's treatment (to have them carted away by federally/state/locally funded cops and troopers), one method is more restrictive than the other.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Brokaw made the point that Democrats have actively alienated and been overwhelmingly hostile to many Americans.

While Brokaw was making this point, Mitchell was unhesitatingly nodding in agreement. When Brokaw went further and stated that the Democrats have actually engaged in a campaign of "mocking and belittling" Americans of "faith" Mitchell flatly said he was in agreement with Brokaw's point. Only at the end of the interview did Mitchell state - as an afterthought - that "not all Democrats" are like this.

I would like to know who they were referring to.

If it's "Democrats" like Michael Moore, I couldn't be in more agreement and is precisely why I never saw Farenheit 9/11 and argued to the bone with my liberal friends who did, stating that his movie is more dangerous to the party than it is helpful, unless it does one thing - gets out an overwhleming number of voters between 18-24, which it didn't. And I never expected it to. The problem in today's pop-culture world, is the liberals like Moore took to the attack mode through the industry, whereby Clinton used the industry (MTV, Late Nihgt talkshows, etc.) for positive spins. And it made the Repubs job easier to get out and expand the conservative base with that blowhards face on every street corner.

If they are referring to actual candidates, I don't know who they could be referring to.

And I'm not so convinced that Swift Boat didn't alienate and wasn't perceived as a hostile attack either.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it just turns out that in this election, republicans were able to "turn out the base" more effectively than democrats. and the democrats are peeved.

I would say terrified.

Originally posted by Bags:
the Kerry camp's treatment of protesters (to stand in front of them so they don't get news coverage) versus the Bush camp's treatment (to have them carted away by federally/state/locally funded cops and troopers), one method is more restrictive than the other. [/QB]

And Rob Gee's camp says, run them all over. But that's never been popular in this forum, outside the forum it's hugely popular.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, if bush had lost, i don't think that moral values would have been the reason. iraq would have been the reason

Actually, I think it would have been the economy, but the Dems never made a plausbile issue out of it.

This a problem of the exit poll though: who is not willing to say that moral values is an important issue for them?

Yes, there are some statistical outliers such as Ted Nugent and Rob_Gee. Thankfully, they're more talk than action.

Originally posted by Rob_Gee:

Originally posted by Bags:
the Kerry camp's treatment of protesters (to stand in front of them so they don't get news coverage) versus the Bush camp's treatment (to have them carted away by federally/state/locally funded cops and troopers), one method is more restrictive than the other.

And Rob Gee's camp says, run them all over. But that's never been popular in this forum, outside the forum it's hugely popular. [/QB]

Originally posted by vansmack:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it just turns out that in this election, republicans were able to "turn out the base" more effectively than democrats. and the democrats are peeved.

I would say terrified.

exactly.

kerry should have come out for allowing states to decriminalize soft drugs. about the only think that could bring out the young vote ;)

Not that i am American but

Here's what needs to be done

Originally posted by vansmack:
This a problem of the exit poll though: who is not willing to say that moral values is an important issue for them?

Not that this is relevant since we are talking about the US, but come to Europe and ask about moral values and religion in an exit poll and most people will tell you that we don't give a shit about these terms.

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Yes, there are some statistical outliers such as Ted Nugent and Rob_Gee. Thankfully, they're more talk than action.

[/QB]

I believe the majority of people are all talk than action, or else the prison population would be in the billions.

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:

kerry should have come out for allowing states to decriminalize soft drugs. about the only think that could bring out the young vote ;)

the libertarian party is all over that. course, they also want to get rid of the departments of energy, education, health and human services, and the irs, to name a few.

Originally posted by vansmack:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, if bush had lost, i don't think that moral values would have been the reason. iraq would have been the reason

Actually, I think it would have been the economy, but the Dems never made a plausbile issue out of it.

yeah, the economy is another reason, and i agree that the dems and kerry never got that issue off the ground. i mean, on economy alone, bush should have got killed in ohio and michigan, yet he won ohio and lost michigan by like 4 percent.

i agree, Kerry was too "bush sucks" and not enough "i'm the one"

a negative approach doesn't get you very far most of the time.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:

kerry should have come out for allowing states to decriminalize soft drugs. about the only think that could bring out the young vote ;)

the libertarian party is all over that. course, they also want to get rid of the departments of energy, education, health and human services, and the irs, to name a few.

yeah, the greens too. haven't republicans talked about getting rid of all of those too in the past decade or two?