It's a sad day....

[matriarch]

.................. But by essentially calling me an elite liberal snob, your post went so far beyond rude that I have to wonder what happened to the woman who claimed she wasn't going to rub salt into anyone's wounds, and who has up till now always been the epitome of politeness on these boards.

Well, Colly, here's my $7.4 trillion dollar wound (the current Federal debt) and my despair for my country. Rub away.

At the risk of being slammed as well, I'm sorry Karen, but I have to take you to task here. Read Colly's post again. Particularly her final p.s. after her signature.

quote: (In the interest of getting slammed less hard, I do not neccissarily hold the convictions I have enumerated here.)

At no time did she ever accuse anyone, or point a finger, or insult you or anyone........she was not rude to anyone. As far as I can see, what she was doing was trying to explain the 'mind of middle America', as she saw it. An explanation of how the minds of those 51m people work that made them vote the way they did.

Polite she was, and polite she always is.

Mat

 

[KarenAM]

Why are you taking this personally? I didn't single out anyone to aim the comments at. I use you and your in reference to the Democratic party and to a lesser extent liberals, who by and large call that their party.

If the observation that your party needs to reevaluate itself is painful, I apologize. I did not mean to offend anyone on a personal level with my post. I thought I was providing a view that many of you don't see. I will endeavour in the future to keep my views to myself.

-Colly

I apologize, Colly. I'm mad. As to why I took your post personally it is because of your frequent use of the 2nd person "you". Since you were responding to my post I think this was to be expected. I note that you have done it again in this post too.

The Democratic party is not "my" party and it never has been. I have been a registered independent my whole voting life, and have never, including this past election, voted a straught ticket. I have no input whatsoever into the Democratic party. It wasn't your views that angered me (they are in fact largely correct), it was the fact that you made unfair assumptions about me personally, or at least that was how your post read.

I hope you don't decide to keep your views to yourself, since I and many others find them interesting and enlightening. I just hope that you also use your considerable writing skills (I've read many of your stories, as you know) with a gentler, less personal tone when you are being critical.

For myself, again, I apologize for my hostility.

Matriarch: I hope this explains my feelings on this.

 

[BlackSnake]

.... I will endeavour in the future to keep my views to myself.

-Colly

No you won't. You will speak you mind. It's a good thing.

 

[razor_nut]

And therein lies the problem.

Reverse your statement, Blacksnake. Does that not now give all those who America "hate" a ticket for them to bomb the hell out of it?

Think on for a while.

Lou

Lou is right (and gorgeous). This plays right into the hands of terrorist organizations. They claim that the West is at war with the Muslim world and that attitude plays right into that hand. You won't make the muslim world stop hating us by doing whatever you can to eradicate them.

 

[BlackSnake]

And therein lies the problem.

Reverse your statement, Blacksnake. Does that not now give all those who America "hate" a ticket for them to bomb the hell out of it?

Think on for a while.

Lou

That's what they did!

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: It's a sad day....

I'll probably take heat for saying this, but I think a lot of American's take a lot of pride in there own ignorance. Don't want to be too pretentious, to hoity-toity, or god forbid cultured. Don't want or need to understand the rest of the world, learn a second language or figure out the difference between Iraq and Iran, or Osama and Sadamm.

And I think a big part of the vote for bush is from people who just love that he's "simple, straightforward and 'an ordinary guy'- 'one of us'"

I think a big part of the thinking goes, "Don't vote for Kerry. Not only does he not share our values, not only will he leave us undefended against terrorism, but even worse than that *he thinks he's better than you.*

I fully expected to get slammed for this post. Instead it pretty much was ignored. Nonetheless, I found this article today which pretty much backs up my assessment.

Bush did not remember Kerry but he knew the type: sanctimonious suck-ups who looked down on fun-loving fellows like George W. Bush. In the world according to Bush, guys like Kerry were not out just to ruin Yale. They wanted to take over the whole country, to impose the smug, know-it-all liberal ideology on regular, God-fearing, hardworking Americans. Kerry's regard for Bush was just as dismissive. Kerry may or may not have met Bush at Yale but he had met his kind before. At Kerry's prep school, boys like Bush were known as "regs," regular guys, the cool, sarcastic in-crowd that made awkward, too-eager-to-please boys like John F. Kerry feel low and left out. The regs were insular, stuck up, too sure of themselves to reach out to, or even see, the wider world.

It is impossible to understand the 2004 presidential campaign without appreciating the nature of the animus between the two men. It wasn't entirely personal; the candidates were capable of saying gracious things about each other's family. But their differences went beyond party or ideology or styles of leadership. Each saw the other as a symbol of the wrong side of the great post-1960s divide. Bush eyed Kerry and saw the worst of Blue State America—a pseudo-intellectual, a Frenchified phony, a dithering weakling. Rove built a whole campaign around this point of view, casting Kerry as a "flip-flopper," "out of the mainstream," clinging to the effete "left bank" of society. Kerry looked down on Bush and saw the worst of Red State America, a know-nothing who blustered and swaggered, even though his head was stuck in the sand. The two candidates could debate lofty issues in a time of war, but their mutual disdain showed through.

from: How Bush Did It
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6407226/site/newsweek/?GT1=5809

 

[Guest]

That's what they did!

Oh yes, of course. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, isn't it?

Remind me, please, when exactly did Saddam Hussein and the old regime of Iraq bomb the US?

For the record, I am not saying that he didn't deserve all he got, he did, but the reasons for the invasion were all screwed up. As we all now know.

Lou

P.S. Thanks, Razor.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I apologize, Colly. I'm mad. As to why I took your post personally it is because of your frequent use of the 2nd person "you". Since you were responding to my post I think this was to be expected. I note that you have done it again in this post too.

The Democratic party is not "my" party and it never has been. I have been a registered independent my whole voting life, and have never, including this past election, voted a straught ticket. I have no input whatsoever into the Democratic party. It wasn't your views that angered me (they are in fact largely correct), it was the fact that you made unfair assumptions about me personally, or at least that was how your post read.

I hope you don't decide to keep your views to yourself, since I and many others find them interesting and enlightening. I just hope that you also use your considerable writing skills (I've read many of your stories, as you know) with a gentler, less personal tone when you are being critical.

For myself, again, I apologize for my hostility.

Matriarch: I hope this explains my feelings on this.

No need to apologize. I'm gettng into trouble all over with the use of the 2nd person you today. i just ned to shut up and go back to Nano. I apologize sincerely for stateing things so awkwardly that you thought it was a personal attack.

-Colly

 

[BlackSnake]

Lou is right (and gorgeous). This plays right into the hands of terrorist organizations. They claim that the West is at war with the Muslim world and that attitude plays right into that hand. You won't make the muslim world stop hating us by doing whatever you can to eradicate them.

I suppose you have a better plan to stop terrorism.

They did not face armed military persons, they murdered people, some of whom were working to create a better world. Not a better America.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Colly and Karen,

I think you are both right (in certain respects), and I'm glad that both of you have posted. I'm also glad that you've pushed each other into clarifying your posts.

I don't even think that you are necessarily disagreeing as much as you think you are

 

[BlackSnake]

Oh yes, of course. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, isn't it?

Remind me, please, when exactly did Saddam Hussein and the old regime of Iraq bomb the US?

For the record, I am not saying that he didn't deserve all he got, he did, but the reasons for the invasion were all screwed up. As we all now know.

Lou

P.S. Thanks, Razor.

Not an eye for an eye. My feelings are, step on my foot and loose your leg.

Saddam Hussein regime did not comply with the demands of the UN. It attack it's neighbor and the US came to its defense. The regime showed that it posed a threat to peace. I wish he was dead. And I don't care what reason was used to remove his regime.

I do feel for the people of Iraq. Some of who were safer under the evil regime than they are now.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I suppose you have a better plan to stop terrorism.

They did not face armed military persons, they murdered people, some of whom were working to create a better world. Not a better America.

"They" as in the entire Muslim world, blacksnake?

Come on, I hope you know better than that...

 

[sweetnpetite]

Not an eye for an eye. My feelings are, step on my foot and loose your leg.

Saddam Hussein regime did not comply with the demands of the UN. It attack it's neighbor and the US came to its defense. The regime showed that it posed a threat to peace. I wish he was dead. And I don't care what reason was used to remove his regime.

I do feel for the people of Iraq. Some of who were safer under the evil regime than they are now.

Lou said:

Remind me, please, when exactly did Saddam Hussein and the old regime of Iraq bomb the US?

In response to your words:

That's what they did!

I don't think you answered the question.

 

[KarenAM]

No need to apologize. I'm gettng into trouble all over with the use of the 2nd person you today. i just ned to shut up and go back to Nano. I apologize sincerely for stateing things so awkwardly that you thought it was a personal attack.

-Colly

It's truly impossible not to Colly.

Truly.

 

[BlackSnake]

"They" as in the entire Muslim world, blacksnake?

Come on, I hope you know better than that...

"They" - Terrorist that are against my country and people, along with those who support them and their actions.

May "Them" / "They" burn in hell.

Now, enough of my true feels.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

A libby doing what Colly told us to do

First off, the cons aren't idiots. Idiots are just an easy term we like to use because the libs are proud of broad-mindedness. Cons as voted in the election were mostly fact-dumb. This means that they believed more lies than truths. For instance, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That is a fact admitted by Bush, but many people still believed that. An overwhelming number did. This made the Repubs very angry when the Dems protest against the war. "Why don't you faggots want to fight terror?" they call at us and we look at them like they're idiots because they are fact-dumb. Getting facts out to middle america and the deep south would be the easy solution but it is physically impossible. Our country is so polarized (because of Right-wing pundits. Sure I can play the impartisan card and blame radio voices on both sides, but it only came from one side. Angry Repubs were able to distribute constant stories of the extreme left in order to make a more clearly right powerhouse. This is why the nation is irrepairably divided.) that Americans on both sides only pay attention to certain separate news sources.

So, that impossible, Dems are going to have to fix themselves another way. First off, the leftists are screwed forever. Sorry, but it's true. You can try to form a new party but it will fail. Move to a real country with PR or vote Republican Lite consistently like all the other drones.

For Democratic leadership, retarget the union voters, emphasize the concerned mom aspect, and GROW A FUCKING BACKBONE! You simper like little dogs worried about poll numbers as Repubs roll over you and corner every single buzzword of flag, America, God, family, values, anti-terror, everything. The libs are the most anti-terror group out there because the repubs don't have the focus to deal with problems that don't have a centralized location, boundaries, or leaders. However, they have let themselves be painted into a corner without a fight. More Dem senators and leaders need to constantly pummel Bush over BinLadin, show a mean fighting spirit. Decisiveness is key for a leader and if the Dems want to be taken seriously they need to show that they will stick up for themselves and America. The Dems should also brag about their religion like the Repubs do as well as start quoting the Bibles numerous admonishments of Republican actions. The atheists will vote for Dems anyway, because it's at least a gentler version of Christianity than Evangelicanism.

Also, biggest of all, Dems need to erase their elitism. Their is a growing movement by the Dems to look intellectually superior, but to most people that looks the same as being one of the "rich bastards". Thus, millionaires are able to paint themselves as populists and pass through bills that hurt the lower classes with the lower class support because the libs want to "Steal their money". To counter this, the Dems need to scale themselves down, paint themselves as anti-rich regular joes again instead of "college faggots". This means relentlessly attacking Republican spending habits and molding themselves as fiscal conservatives who will back the working man's rights. This means being anti-free trade, NAFTA, illegal immigration and more. Sure, it may make the leftists feel icky and lose some of the hispanic vote, but people know where the unemployment benefits and aid for the poor come from. (Dem emphasizing of unemployment benefits for "Joe America" and his God-blessed family wouldn't hurt in the least either. Make it American to have unemployment to help you through the rough patches, not a sin). Similarly retaking up environmental issues in the small towns would really help brighten up their impressions of liberals. Again, dems need to constantly attack the "boss man" who exploits Joe America and forces their family to live in squalor. Having a poor man from the South tell them this like Edwards is crucial for Pres elections. Demonize rich owners at every opportunity in order to divide the two cores of the republican party, much like how the repubs used gays and "liberal elitism" to cut the cores of the Dem party.

Also sacrifice the gays to the wolves. The protestors, friendly media, and increased visibility of gays including their movement into suburbs and small towns will help to slowly convert over the homophobia. Don't go overboard on the condemnation, but separate yourselves from them. The leftists won't like it but what have the dems ever done for the leftists? They're used to disappointment.

Overall th important thing is to get out the message that the Dems aren't the party of leftist America haters, that they are really Republicans Lite, a moderate and slightly more socially liberal version of the old Republican party. To do this, Dems need to emphasize their pro-union, pro-enivironment, and pro-family stances as well as adopt a more biblical language. Divide the bases of the repubs power the same way they did to the Dems and keep up the angry language. Don't dissemble, populize, emphasize almost endlessly the affect on Joe America, tell the Middle States that the Dems not the Repubs are the ones who will stand up for the small farmer or worker. If they do this, they'll have the majority available to secretly push along the leftist desires in the same way Bush is pushing the rightist desires.

Oh, and an added note, Dems. Give up gun control. Really, you're screwed on the issue. You have no way to ever win and it leaves you open to be called anti-Constitution by a group that wants to remove far more of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. Start supporting guns in your speechs, brag about your gun collections, be sincere about it. Again you disenfranchise, but by trying to have the pie both ways, you lose the South by guaranteed margins. Instead become strict constitutionslists in all degrees and bash bash bash the repubs for every limit they try to place on the Bill of Rights. Paint them in the same brush you allowed yourselves to be painted in.

Overall, the main issue is that the Dems need to propagandize better. Attack, attack, attack. By endlessly rolling over, they look weak-willed, by trying to have both sides of every issue, they look uncertain and indecisive, and by being nice, they allow themselves to be pummeled. Get angry, make long biblical rants against the opponent's morality. Dig up and publish secrets about their secret immoralities. Make sure the country knows well the hypocrisy. Don't stop attacking. Here 4 years after he's left, the right wing pundits haven't stopped ranting about CLinton. The left lets impeachable shocks completely leave the public's radar in a matter of days. We should have been slamming Bush mercilously about the Al-Queda mole leak or the Plame revelation. The tax cuts should have been hammered repeatedly as an anti-blue color worker tax. Anger, bile, the dems have it, but they internalize it. Venom needs to fly. Dirty tricks employed, the whole kettle of fish. If they want to ever have victories and not disappear into the background as another failed party, it is absolutely key that they do this.



It won't be "pretty". It won't be "morally superior" and it sure as hell will require a lot of causes close to our hearts be abandoned to independent groups and culture. However, it will bring victory and in America that has been proven to be all that matters.

 

[rgraham666]

BlackSnake? If I may inquire?

What, exactly, makes you different from 'them'?

Beware when you battle monsters,
lest you become a monster.
And as you gaze into the abyss,
the abyss gazes also,
into you.

 

[matriarch]

...................

Matriarch: I hope this explains my feelings on this.

 

[BlackSnake]

Lou said:



In response to your words:



I don't think you answered the question.

Here is the question:
Reverse your statement, Blacksnake. Does that not now give all those who America "hate" a ticket for them to bomb the hell out of it?

You might have missed that.

 

[BlackSnake]

BlackSnake? If I may inquire?

What, exactly, makes you different from 'them'?

The difference between me and them is, and it's a big one. I would not kill a child for any reason.

 

[rgraham666]

"Step on my foot, lose your leg" makes me doubt your whether you have the restraint necessary to avoid killing a child.

Intentions are not the same thing as actions.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I suppose you have a better plan to stop terrorism.

Yes, followed bin-Ladin into Pakistan. Threaten Pakistani dictator if he refuses to allow troop movement, emphasize the ability to nuke his country into glass if he threatened a nuke attack against either India or the troops. Emphasize to Muslim world that we are only going after the al_Queda terrorists that attacked us and we will not allow such attacks against us. Tell them we will also listen to their concerns if they wish to present it to us in a non-violent manner. Offer a consortium with the top Muslim minds in the reasons to resolve the major issues the Muslim nations have with us. Be polite, but firm.

After the eradication of the al-queda training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the capture of bin-Ladin ideally without the total destruction of Afghani and Pakistani governments unless they refused a rational diplomatic threat/request. Also demand the Saudi shieks cease their funding of Islamic terrorist groups. Threaten them with the removal of support. Also, remove the Saudi bases near holy sites as a punishment for Saudi royal support of al-Queda. Advertise the movement as such and move the bases into Israel or Turkey.

Also, yell at Egyptian government about Islamic Jihad, the group from which the majority of the hijackers came from and which merged with al-Queda before the attacks. Inform them that they need to crack down on their extremist groups and fund them with money for this purpose. Inform them that if the money is ill-spent that we will punish with harsh sanctions and possible invasion.

Leave Iraq alone because it was not really doing any harm and it was also the only secular Islamic nation in existance. Plus, it existed as another target besides us and Israel to earn the ire of the Muslim fundamentalists like bin-Ladin. Thus, leave him alone and not invade in, putting Americans in the holy city of Mecca, a sacrilege incomparable in western society. For a close approximation, imagine someone hanging a bunch of upside down pentagrams and "God is dead" signs in the local cathedral or church. Plus someone pissed in the baptismal waters. Oh and burned a huge pile of Bibles on the altar. Dead babies hung from rafters. Etc...

That would have been the better solution. But then, no body gives a damn about a greasy haired traitor's opinion. After all, Iraq had WMDs and blew up the WTC. I mean even Bush denied that was the case. Wait...hmmm.... Eh.

 

[rgraham666]

After thinking about those people that Colleen was talking about, the ones who voted for Bush because they don't want the world to change.

John Wyndham pointed out that there is only one place in the universe where no change happens. And that place is among the fossils.

 

[BlackSnake]

"Step on my foot, lose your leg" makes me doubt your whether you have the restraint necessary to avoid killing a child.

Intentions are not the same thing as actions.

In the horrors of war noncombatants die. This is true, but I'm no longer a soldier.

Terrorism has been happening for years in other countries, but now I fear and I'm paranoid.

I think all nations should fight against terrorism.

In this land we should begin with the Klan, and then the street gangs.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

In the horrors of war noncombatants die. This is true, but I'm no longer a soldier.

Terrorism has been happening for years in other countries, but now I fear and I'm paranoid.

I think all nations should fight against terrorism.

In this land we should begin with the Klan, and then the street gangs.

I vehemently agree. I just wish we did that.

Al-Queda is smirking still on TV still from Pakistan where he's been since 9/11. The Klan still meets and smirks and plays on Southern racism. Anti-semites like Gordon Kahl get huge vigils and Jew killing campaigns as memorials in the midwest, Timothy McVeigh was cited as a hero by right-wing survivalist fuckwits and street gangs are feared too much by the cops and the communities to ever get broken up.

It seems though when given a tough problem, our government is more willing to offer a false balm than a true cure. Al-Queda is hard to find, bomb Iraq. Klan is decentralized, declare victory over racism. Call Gordon Kahl and Timothy McVeigh isolated incidents. Create tough anti-crime bills that don't really address or lead to increased arrests of gang members.

It's all quite a bit depressing.