Vote
11-03-2004, 04:16 PM
#121
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Nov 3 2004, 06:12 PM
Bill, what's wrong with an anti-Republican bias in an OPINION piece?
I think your opinions and how you express them are another good example of this. You equate those who are against gay marriage with racial bigots. Fine. You are entitled to your opinion. What you should realize is that your opinion, and the way you express it, alienates people. People of good conscience have wrestled with this issue and some have decided they cannot support gay marriage. You call them bigots. Do you think that will make them vote for your candidate? Do you have any idea what the word bigot means to people who are in their 40s, 50s, or 60s? For what it is worth, I share your view that we should allow gays to marry. But I would never think of calling those who oppose the idea bigots.
You may think I am arguing political positions with you. I am not. I am trying to express my opinions about what the democrats need to do to win the presidency. You don't win votes by pissing people off. But as I have said many times today, I'm not sure why I'm trying.
11-03-2004, 04:18 PM
#122
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Nov 3 2004, 06:15 PM
True, that is the assumption. But it's explicitly stated, so what's your point?
On the other hand, you assumed that you had the right and ability to decide that my personal feelings and analysis (in the "Divided" thread) were rhetoric and hyperbole. You can say they are wrong, but you have no right to say I don't actually believe them.
On the other hand, you assumed that you had the right and ability to decide that my personal feelings and analysis (in the "Divided" thread) were rhetoric and hyperbole. You can say they are wrong, but you have no right to say I don't actually believe them.
11-03-2004, 04:29 PM
#123
Originally Posted by ralper,Nov 3 2004, 06:56 PM
Bill
Of course there is bias in the piece. No question about it. I would expect no less from a liberal writer in a reasonably liberal newspaper. Just as I would expect a conservative writer, writing in a conservative paper, to speak to his or her audience.
The point of the piece, however, is not that the voters were duped, but rather how the Democrats have lost touch with those who were the very heart of their constituency in the past. I don't think he is criticizing the voters so much as he is criticizing the party. And, I think he is right. I think we Democrats have ourselves to blame for losing the election as much as anything else.
I think the Democratic party would do well to learn from the Republicans. The Republican party, and the Bush campaign, like it or not, had brilliant strategy. They outlined their issues, focused on their issues and took a consistent stand. Their propaganda read better than the Democrat's in the heartland, and they were much more skillful at "spin". In general their campaign was much better orchestrated and organized. But, to quote Will Rogers, "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
I don't believe in what the Republican party believes in, and I don't think Bush was the better man (unfortunately, the best man left office on December 31, 2000), but the Republicans did a better job of getting their message out.
Of course there is bias in the piece. No question about it. I would expect no less from a liberal writer in a reasonably liberal newspaper. Just as I would expect a conservative writer, writing in a conservative paper, to speak to his or her audience.
The point of the piece, however, is not that the voters were duped, but rather how the Democrats have lost touch with those who were the very heart of their constituency in the past. I don't think he is criticizing the voters so much as he is criticizing the party. And, I think he is right. I think we Democrats have ourselves to blame for losing the election as much as anything else.
I think the Democratic party would do well to learn from the Republicans. The Republican party, and the Bush campaign, like it or not, had brilliant strategy. They outlined their issues, focused on their issues and took a consistent stand. Their propaganda read better than the Democrat's in the heartland, and they were much more skillful at "spin". In general their campaign was much better orchestrated and organized. But, to quote Will Rogers, "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
I don't believe in what the Republican party believes in, and I don't think Bush was the better man (unfortunately, the best man left office on December 31, 2000), but the Republicans did a better job of getting their message out.
11-03-2004, 04:37 PM
#124
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East Berlin, PA
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Dear Vintage Friends... I am having trouble sitting here, reading this thread and not chipping in with my 2-cents worth. While I respect everyone's contribution without mud-slinging or 'name calling', I believe that I came across a profound article that deserves reading and consideration. While at first it may be hard to digest because we've become desensitized to the input of our chosen venue of information... I believe it is worthy of reading and soul-searching. Wouldn't it be frightful if we, ourselves, awoke in the Matrix??? Please consider that the American public (all to eager to be told 'how to think' so we don't have to do it for ourselves...) has been duped..., by the "whisperer" who tells us how to think... and who tells us to leave our fundamental beliefs and morality behind as we blindly follow, not as sheep but as lemmings. May all references to God reflect "your" God... I cannot/willnot deny Him in my life!
Editor's Note: "This groundbreaking expose of the "mainstream press" by WND (www.worldnetdaily.com) Managing Editor David Kupelian was published originally in the October 2004 edition of Whistleblower magazine, an issue titled "POISON PRESS."
"... (But) this article is not about how the press is too "biased" or "liberal" or "left-wing." That's old news
Editor's Note: "This groundbreaking expose of the "mainstream press" by WND (www.worldnetdaily.com) Managing Editor David Kupelian was published originally in the October 2004 edition of Whistleblower magazine, an issue titled "POISON PRESS."
"... (But) this article is not about how the press is too "biased" or "liberal" or "left-wing." That's old news
11-03-2004, 04:39 PM
#125
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Milford
Posts: 1,324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Legal Bill,Nov 3 2004, 08:29 PM
Rob, my response to Mike makes the same point I was trying to make in asking you the question about that article. My point is that starting from the premise that the voters were duped, the democratic party will be no better off than they are now. If the democrats cannot at least respect the opinions of others and believe they voted against Kerry because they are reasonably informed and simply disagree with him, then I think the dems are doomed to repeat this election.
The general tone has been that if you support Bush you are ignorant or a zealot or a moron or a racist or a hick. That certainly doesn't ring true to people who may be unsure of who they will support.
The main arguments against Bush have also been hollow. At one time people would have you believe that Bush is a stupid, inbred stooge who cannot put his pants on without Rove and Cheney helping him yet he controls a vast secret conspiracy which manipulates events throughout the known universe due to nepotism. These are pretty similar to the rants against Ronald Regan. Taking apart certain policies would have been more effective in persuading voters to change their minds than personal attacks on someone's intelligence or integrity.
11-03-2004, 05:10 PM
#127
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Nov 3 2004, 09:39 PM
Actually, you are misrepresenting what I said (and what I think). I am fully aware that there are many possible reasons for opposing gay marriage. However, bigotry is certainly one of them. Jeff said (and I agree) that the gay marriage issue was intentionally raised by the Rs in many places in order to encourage people who were bigots on that issue to vote. That is different than saying all people who voted R are bigots, or against gay marriage.
I do, however, think that the arguments for and against gay marriage are extremely similar to those about mixed race marriages. Furthermore, I'm not hoping to change any minds on the issue. I think that, like racial bigotry, essentially it will be a matter of waiting until folks who are set in their ways die off.
Oh, and I'm 38. I do have some idea of what the word "bigot" means to people who remember the civil rights struggles of the 50s and 60s. And it's not like race relations are perfect nowadays. I'm disappointed but not surprised that people who lived through those times and fought for change don't see the parallels today. But then again, some of the most racially bigoted people were the immigrant populations who themselves were struggling to overcome bigotry. That's just human nature, I guess.
Why would you "never think of calling those who oppose the idea bigots"? Is not a spade a spade? First I ask people why they oppose it. Then I discuss it with them. Only if it comes down to them finally saying, "I don't care, it just isn't right" do I conclude that they are being bigots. But once I do conclude that, I'm willing to say it. Won't change their minds, but I'm not expecting their minds to change anyway.
And you may have missed it, but I'm not a Democrat. I don't care if they ever get the Presidency ever again. I vote for (or against) the candidate I think is best for the country. Sometimes that person is running from the Rs, sometimes from the Ds, sometimes from neither. I don't give a flying
what it takes for the Democrats to win an election. I am concerned that someone who has done what Bush has done (started a stupid war, and run the deficit to sky high levels) can pull together enough votes to win, though.
[Edit: Oh, and you most certainly can win elections by pissing people off. You just have to pick unpopular people who are in a small minority.]
I do, however, think that the arguments for and against gay marriage are extremely similar to those about mixed race marriages. Furthermore, I'm not hoping to change any minds on the issue. I think that, like racial bigotry, essentially it will be a matter of waiting until folks who are set in their ways die off.
Oh, and I'm 38. I do have some idea of what the word "bigot" means to people who remember the civil rights struggles of the 50s and 60s. And it's not like race relations are perfect nowadays. I'm disappointed but not surprised that people who lived through those times and fought for change don't see the parallels today. But then again, some of the most racially bigoted people were the immigrant populations who themselves were struggling to overcome bigotry. That's just human nature, I guess.
Why would you "never think of calling those who oppose the idea bigots"? Is not a spade a spade? First I ask people why they oppose it. Then I discuss it with them. Only if it comes down to them finally saying, "I don't care, it just isn't right" do I conclude that they are being bigots. But once I do conclude that, I'm willing to say it. Won't change their minds, but I'm not expecting their minds to change anyway.
And you may have missed it, but I'm not a Democrat. I don't care if they ever get the Presidency ever again. I vote for (or against) the candidate I think is best for the country. Sometimes that person is running from the Rs, sometimes from the Ds, sometimes from neither. I don't give a flying
what it takes for the Democrats to win an election. I am concerned that someone who has done what Bush has done (started a stupid war, and run the deficit to sky high levels) can pull together enough votes to win, though.[Edit: Oh, and you most certainly can win elections by pissing people off. You just have to pick unpopular people who are in a small minority.]
I used to think we had to wait for folks to die off too. Then I learned that I was underestimating my fellow man. If you know what the word bigotry means to those who lived through the civil rights era, then you know what it means to use it. The dictionary definition isn't very relevant.
It's fine that you don't care to change anyone's mind. The point is simple though. You were against Bush. You still are. When you express your opinions in the fashion that you express them people react accordingly. People also assume you are a democrat. It really doesn't matter that you aren't. If you are worried about who gets elected you might want to think about that. We all have an impact on eachother.
11-03-2004, 05:17 PM
#128
Thread Starter
[QUOTE=Legal Bill,Nov 3 2004, 08:29 PM] Rob, my response to Mike makes the same point I was trying to make in asking you the question about that article.
11-03-2004, 05:18 PM
#129
Registered User
Originally Posted by Legal Bill,Nov 3 2004, 06:10 PM
It's fine that you don't care to change anyone's mind. The point is simple though. You were against Bush. You still are. When you express your opinions in the fashion that you express them people react accordingly.
11-03-2004, 05:20 PM
#130
^ In relation to Rob's last comment, I have received a report about this thread. I'm not sure what Chaz and I are going to do about it. I believe the initiator of the thread can close it. You might want to consider that option.
