PDA

View Full Version : Concession speech I wish Kerry had given



afronaut
5th November 04, 12:36 PM
Random e-mail forward from a friend of a friend's sister's cousin, etc.

My fellow Americans, the people of this nation have spoken, and spoken with a clear voice. So I am here to offer my concession. I concede that I overestimated the intelligence of the American people. Though the
people disagree with the President on almost every issue, you saw fit to vote for him. I never saw that coming. That's really special. And I mean "special" in the sense that we use it to describe those kids who ride the short school bus and find ways to injure themselves while eating pudding with rubber spoons. That kind of special.

I concede that I misjudged the power of hate. That's pretty powerful stuff, and I didn't see it. So let me take a moment to congratulate the President's strategists: Putting the gay marriage amendments on the
ballot in various swing states like Ohio... well, that was just genius.

Genius. It got people, a certain kind of people, to the polls. The unprecedented number of folks who showed up and cited "moral values" as their biggest issue, those people changed history. The folks who
consider same sex marriage a more important issue than war, or terrorism, or the economy... Who'd have thought the election would belong to them? Well, Karl Rove did. Gotta give it up to him for that.

I concede that I put too much faith in America's youth. With 8 out of 10 of you opposing the President, with your friends and classmates dying daily in a war you disapprove of, with your future being mortgaged to
pay for rich old peoples' tax breaks, you somehow managed to sit on your asses and watch the Cartoon Network while aging homophobic hillbillies carried the day. You voted with the exact same anemic percentage that you did in 2000. You suck. Seriously, you do.

There are some who would say that I sound bitter, that now is the time for healing, to bring the nation together. We in blue states produce the vast majority of the wealth in this country and pay the most taxes, and you in the red states receive the majority of the money from those taxes while complaining about 'em. We in the blue states are the only ones who've been attacked by foreign terrorists, yet you in the red states are gung ho to fight a war in our name. Blue state civilians are the actual victims and targets of the war on terror, while red state civilians are the ones standing behind us and yelling "Oh, yeah!? Bring it on!"

More than 40% of you Bush voters still believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I'm impressed by that, truly I am. Your sons and daughters who might die in this war know it's not true, the people in the urban centers where al Qaeda wants to attack know it's not true, but those of you who are at practically no risk believe this easy lie because you can. As part of my concession speech, let me say that I really envy that luxury. I concede that.

Healing? We, the people at risk from terrorists, the people who subsidize you, the people who speak in glowing and respectful terms about the heartland of America while that heartland insults and excoriates us... we wanted some healing. We spoke loud and clear. And you refused to give it to us, largely because of your high moral values. You knew better: America doesn't need its allies, doesn't need to share the burden, doesn't need to unite the world, doesn't need to provide for its future. Hell no. Not when it's got a human shield of pointy-headed, atheistic, unconfrontational breadwinners who are willing to pay the
bills and play nice in the vain hope of winning a vote that we can never have. Because we're "morally inferior," I suppose, we are supposed to respect your values while you insult ours. And the big joke here is
that for 20 years, we've done just that.

It's not a "ha-ha" funny joke, I realize, but it's a joke all the same.


And I make this pledge to you today: In the next election, there will be no pandering. Next time we will not pretend that the simple folk of America know just as much as the people who devote their lives to
serving and studying the nation and the world. They don't. I'm talking to you, you ignorant, slack-jawed yokels, you Bible-thumping, inbred drones, you redneck, racist, chest-thumping, perennially duped grade-school grads.

Thank you, and may God, if he does in fact exist, bless each and every one of you.

Stick
5th November 04, 02:09 PM
I like it, a few good points in there.

I love how New York, the only place to really be attacked, and one of te few places where gay people being married is something a citizen stands a chance of even seeing, voted overwhelming- and I don't mean 51% to 48% overwhelming, I mean real pwnage- against Bush in favor of Kerry.

Pandering to middle America may be the only way to win, but at least we'd be able to sleep at night if we didn't fucking do it.

note: I cannot sleep at night, check when most of my posts are done if you don't believe me.

Matt W.
5th November 04, 02:15 PM
Wastrel, I can't believe you took ME to task for contributing to the degredation of the American political climate.

*sigh*

WingChun Lawyer
5th November 04, 02:18 PM
You know, I am honestly sorry for all those americans with common sense enough to realize that Bush did not, as a matter of fact, deserve another four years. You have my sympathies.

Stick
5th November 04, 02:28 PM
No Matt, it really does make some good points.

8 out of 10 people my age despise Bush, and my peers still failed miserably to get out and vote. Millions of dollars and countless hours of precious celebrity time and effort- time and effort that could've been spent on things like entertainment for all the good it did- and a sizeable portion of the people I see here in the student union probably didn't go and vote.

Wastrel put it pretty well; America hates faggots (though he did concede it was a cheap shot and I have to agree). 11 states voted to ban gay marriage and there's a significant effort to put it into our federal constitution. Whether or not Bob and Joe in San Francisco could tie the knot was actually more important to some of the people of middle America than oh say the failures in Iraq. That's alright though, as this little bit of humor points out, it's not like the red states are in any real danger, the target rich environments that terrorists strike are cities- aka Blue counties.

New York, the site of the most devastating attack voted overwhelmingly to oust Bush, there is absolutly no arguing that point. However, middle America in its infinite moral wisdom knows what's best for New York, come hell or high water.

Frankly, as a student, someone who spends his days and nights looking at these things in our present and past, it makes me sick that so many of the Bush supporters around me (Stillwater OK) honestly believe that Hussein had a strong link to OBL, that Iraq was innvolved in 9-11, and that the WMD are still there somewhere (won't I look like an ass if they magically crop up, but chances are they won't). I see a lot of ignorance around me and throughout middle America. It hurts me when I talk to a girl in Maskogee Oklahoma and she says "I'm voting for Bush because he prays and is against abortion", I ask her a few basic questions about foreign policy and it's all "fuck the world, we don't need them" and "just nuke 'em". I see this every damn day, not a single county in this state was blue, not a one.

To me this is a pretty funny piece based on things that I see around me, that I've been observing for years now.

Rural America ran rampant on urban America, and I make no apologies for the fact that saying that does nothing to heal the rift in our culture; ignoring this problem isn't going to make it go away.

feedback
5th November 04, 02:36 PM
I tried to get all my friends to vote that were able. Still about 25% of them didn't. At least oregon didn't go to Bush, but the principle of it is there.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 02:39 PM
Wastrel, I can't believe you took ME to task for contributing to the degredation of the American political climate.

*sigh*


Forgive me for not monitoring this constantly.

Peter H.
5th November 04, 02:41 PM
No Matt, it really does make some good points.

8 out of 10 people my age despise Bush, and my peers still failed miserably to get out and vote.

And there is the problem, the people who are the future leaders of this country, people your age and my age, are apathetic to getting out there an making a differenec. They pay lip services to caring, but can't be bothered to spend maybe 2 hours once every four years to actually do something.

Af for New York, there are just certain places that are going to vote one way or another no matter what, New York is one of those, it's why they aren't called "Battleground" or "Swing" states.

Greese
5th November 04, 02:45 PM
Yeah, I vote in a different district than my dad. His wait to vote? 1.5 hours. My mom waited for an hour at 6:00 in the morning.
I voted at the place where all the college students should vote....my wait? I was in and out in less than 10 minutes...and that included mean debating wether or not to vote dem or libertarian. I had no wait.

Matt W.
5th November 04, 02:56 PM
Dai, I'm not talking about the issues here, I'm talking about the "anyone who voted for Bush is an idiot" attitude that is becoming increasingly present on this board.

Wastrel, I really don't give a care if you police people on this board, and don't know why you feel the need to anyway. But more and more I'm coming to believe that your giving me the Jon Stewart inspired "you're hurting America" line was a cheap shot that rings hollow in light of all the other things that get said on this board.

I think I'm just going to go back to reading the Active Topics and thank GOD that the rest of the country doesn't feel the same as so many of you here.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 03:00 PM
Dai, I'm not talking about the issues here, I'm talking about the "anyone who voted for Bush is an idiot" attitude that is becoming increasingly present on this board.

Wastrel, I really don't give a care if you police people on this board, and don't know why you feel the need to anyway. But more and more I'm coming to believe that your giving me the Jon Stewart inspired "you're hurting America" line was a cheap shot that rings hollow in light of all the other things that get said on this board.

I think I'm just going to go back to reading the Active Topics and thank GOD that the rest of the country doesn't feel the same as so many of you here.


Troll topics are troll topics, Matt. If an otherwise decent discussion starts to devolve because of acrimony, I have a problem with that, but I'm not a moderator anymore; I'm not going to pay attention to a lot of this.

I didn't even see this before you started complaining.

Yeah, also, you're a bigot, and I'm glad the whole country doesn't feel the way you do,

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 03:00 PM
Cheap shots suck, no?

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 03:04 PM
Just finished reading it. It's not an overwhelmingly penetrating analysis, but some of it is both accurate and significant. It's pretty clear that the Bush campaign won with the politics of anti-faggotry. I don't suppose you heard about the fake recorded GOTV calls being made in Michigan?

"Make sure you go vote for John Kerry if you want to support GAY MARRIAGE! John Kerry is the only one supporting the right of GAYS to MARRY! So if you support GAY MARRIAGE go vote for John Kerry!"

SCO
5th November 04, 03:09 PM
Well, it`s not that everyone who voted for Bush is an idiot, some people just have warped ideas, but anyone who thinks Bush is intelligent or knowledgeable surely isn`t very bright or must have great skills in reality distortion.

Shuma-Gorath
5th November 04, 03:11 PM
That was the most well-written face-slapping of an entire nation that I've read in a long time. Well, the part of the nation that now obviously needs it, anyway.

DJeter1234
5th November 04, 03:11 PM
penetrating, heh.

But seriously, any proof that the calls were orchistrated by the GOP? Otherwise it's like blaming the Kerry campeign for the fake documents.

Phrost
5th November 04, 03:14 PM
Well, it`s not that everyone who voted for Bush is an idiot, some people just have warped ideas, but anyone who thinks Bush is intelligent or knowledgeable surely isn`t very bright or has great skills in reality distortion.

What degrees do you hold again?

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 03:16 PM
What degrees do you hold again?

Oh god, please.

SCO
5th November 04, 03:20 PM
You might get a hint from a thread about numbers, want a link?
Have you stood for formal elections and won them, Phrost?

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 03:21 PM
We might as well just have icons next to our names that indicate the standing of your Alma Mater in the US News and World Report rankings, standardized test scores, etc.

By this measure DJeter1234 and BlackBeltNow are smarter than me, but I'm smarter than Xango. We should just create a special forum for those who attended second and third tier schools and call it "Stupidland".

SCO
5th November 04, 03:26 PM
Seriously, I don`t respect anyone who asks questions like that in seriousness.

You needn`t worry Phrost, I probably won`t stick around much longer, hence the Nazi thread - the only thing I didn`t purely write for entertainment.

And by the way, I have run for institutional elections and won them.

Phrost
5th November 04, 03:31 PM
You might get a hint from a thread about numbers, want a link?
Have you stood for formal elections and won them, Phrost?

Yes, actually. I have.

Phrost
5th November 04, 03:33 PM
Seriously, I don`t respect anyone who asks questions like that in seriousness.

You needn`t worry Phrost, I probably won`t stick around much longer, hence the Nazi thread - the only thing I didn`t purely write for entertainment.

And by the way, I have run for institutional elections and won them.

I'm not sure what this has to do with justifying how you can judge Bush's intelligence as defecient though.

People have been elected to public office without even graduating high school.

Phrost
5th November 04, 03:34 PM
We might as well just have icons next to our names that indicate the standing of your Alma Mater in the US News and World Report rankings, standardized test scores, etc.

By this measure DJeter1234 and BlackBeltNow are smarter than me, but I'm smarter than Xango. We should just create a special forum for those who attended second and third tier schools and call it "Stupidland".

You're missing the point.

Most of the people calling Bush dumb have no room to speak.

Greese
5th November 04, 03:40 PM
How do you figure, exactly? Degrees are not an indication of intelligence.
Regardless, I don't dislike bush because he is a moron. I dislike him because he is utterly fucked up when it comes to pushing the christian right agenda.
I mean, really, how smart can anyone be that appoints Ashcroft to any post?

afronaut
5th November 04, 03:41 PM
Does that mean if my dad didn't buy and schmooze my way through an education that a talented person might have used better, I have no standing to call Bush dumb?

My degrees equal Bush's. He is an idiot. And if I was a salmon fisherman who dropped out in the 5th grade, Bush would still be an idiot.

Stick
5th November 04, 03:44 PM
Phrost, I think I've made it pretty clear that when I judge Bush's intelligence and that of his staff I do so based upon their actions, most notably in terms of foreign policy and the ever narrowing seperation between church and state. Granted, Bush's worsening speech impediment does nothing to further his application to mensa, but that isn't what I'm talking about.

Also..... OSU, I'll have my bachelors in history in a few months, oh and a certificate in East Asian studies and a minor in Japanese. What topics can I discuss and how much detail am I allowed to go into?

And if you think W. got into the schools he did on merrit alone, you are delluded.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 03:45 PM
You're missing the point.

Most of the people calling Bush dumb have no room to speak.

No, I'm not missing the point. Degrees are measure of many things; intelligence is not one of them.

Phrost
5th November 04, 03:47 PM
How do you figure, exactly? Degrees are not an indication of intelligence.
Regardless, I don't dislike bush because he is a moron. I dislike him because he is utterly fucked up when it comes to pushing the christian right agenda.
I mean, really, how smart can anyone be that appoints Ashcroft to any post?

Smart enough to appeal to his base of zealot Christians without having to appoint an even more rabid, Fallwell-like individual to a more damaging position.

It's the exact same crap spewed by the Liberal Elite at Reagan. God, can't some of you people think for yourselves?

HAHA BUSH DUMB! BUSH LIKE JEBUS, BUSH IDIOT.

To listen to you talk you'd think this guy should be wearing a bycicle helmet. And regardless of the strings anyone might have pulled, or benefits of relation which might have gotten him into Yale, they didn't help him graduate.

It's blind fucking faith to believe the man is not intelligent, much less is stupid, and this is BULLSHIDO. You know, the website where we go after people who blindly believe things based on their irrational, emotional desires that they be true?

Stick
5th November 04, 03:50 PM
It's blind fucking faith to believe the man is not intelligent, much less is stupid, and this is BULLSHIDO. You know, the website where we go after people who blindly believe things based on their irrational, emotional desires that they be true?

See, you can understand my gripe with religion, you just don't want to.

SCO
5th November 04, 03:51 PM
No, I'm not missing the point. Degrees are measure of many things; intelligence is not one of them.
All to be said.

Phrost
5th November 04, 03:51 PM
No, I'm not missing the point. Degrees are measure of many things; intelligence is not one of them.

Then name a standard of intelligence by which both Bush, and the rabid, vitriolic Liberal shills around here can both be judged.

As it stands, he's done more with his life than any of you ever will.

Phrost
5th November 04, 03:53 PM
All to be said.

Heh, shut the fuck up. You feel that holding public office is a reflection of intelligence but are going after the person who holds the highest elected office on the planet.

Seriously.

afronaut
5th November 04, 03:54 PM
Then name a standard of intelligence by which both Bush, and the rabid, vitriolic Liberal shills around here can both be judged.

As it stands, he's done more with his life than any of you ever will.

I know. Imagine what he would have accomplished if he had to earn any of it.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 03:54 PM
To listen to you talk you'd think this guy should be wearing a bycicle helmet. And regardless of the strings anyone might have pulled, or benefits of relation which might have gotten him into Yale, they didn't help him graduate.

It's blind fucking faith to believe the man is not intelligent, much less is stupid, and this is BULLSHIDO. You know, the website where we go after people who blindly believe things based on their irrational, emotional desires that they be true?

First of all, the only difficult thing about elite universities IS getting in. Second, the fact that you can't entertain even the notion that Bush's verbal difficulties and apparent cognitive shortcomings are a reasonable basis for believing that he might not be particularly smart is equally telling.

I'm with Xango; Bush is probably around the 75th percentile.

Phrost
5th November 04, 03:56 PM
I'm waiting for an objective standard by which everyone here can be measured against the President.

CrimsonTiger
5th November 04, 03:58 PM
I hate to admit it, but Phrost has a point. You can't judge intelligence, only actions and records of performance.

Fortunately, with humans, past performance IS an indicator of the potential for future success.

I didn't realize that your federal elections get mixed in with Bill votes? So they vote on everyone off the same ballot?! Wow....THAT'S fucked up. Leaves the entire process WAY open to manipulation. Interesting.

Speaking as a foreigner who spends WAY too much time outside my own country, I can't say this really surprised me. Most of the states I visited (granted, they are industrial states, and generally rural "red" states) were quite obviously Bush/Cheney territory. When I heard the following morning that it was down to Ohio, I was surprised at how close it actually was in that state. I saw very little in Ohio that would have led me to believe they would be such strong supporters of Kerry.

Speaking as a late-20-something male (i.e. a former member of the "young people")...it doesn't surprise me that so few young people voted. I personally lived in a Liberal area (our equivalent of the Democrats) and have voted intermittently, thinking it really didn't matter. Only now that I am older and can see how world and national politics can SO directly affect the economy, particularly in the manufacturing industry, do I fully appreciate how important voting is.

You know as a kid, you imagine that if everyone was to rebel against a teacher, they'd be powerless to fail the whole class? But you know that nobody in the class is willing to risk their individual necks on that gamble? Voting is the ONE time in your existence when everyone is HANDED that opportunity...in fact, they are ENCOURAGED to make their opinions known. Young people had their chance to tell off the teacher and actually have the teacher fired.

I'd never go back to being a young person.

SCO
5th November 04, 03:58 PM
Heh, shut the fuck up. You feel that holding public office is a reflection of intelligence
What makes you think I implied that? That`s silly.

Wounded Ronin
5th November 04, 03:59 PM
I hate to admit it, but Phrost has a point. You can't judge intelligence, only actions and records of performance.

Fortunately, with humans, past performance IS an indicator of the potential for future success.

I didn't realize that your federal elections get mixed in with Bill votes? So they vote on everyone off the same ballot?! Wow....THAT'S fucked up. Leaves the entire process WAY open to manipulation. Interesting.

Speaking as a foreigner who spends WAY too much time outside my own country, I can't say this really surprised me. Most of the states I visited (granted, they are industrial states, and generally rural "red" states) were quite obviously Bush/Cheney territory. When I heard the following morning that it was down to Ohio, I was surprised at how close it actually was in that state. I saw very little in Ohio that would have led me to believe they would be such strong supporters of Kerry.

Speaking as a late-20-something male (i.e. a former member of the "young people")...it doesn't surprise me that so few young people voted. I personally lived in a Liberal area (our equivalent of the Democrats) and have voted intermittently, thinking it really didn't matter. Only now that I am older and can see how world and national politics can SO directly affect the economy, particularly in the manufacturing industry, do I fully appreciate how important voting is.

You know as a kid, you imagine that if everyone was to rebel against a teacher, they'd be powerless to fail the whole class? But you know that nobody in the class is willing to risk their individual necks on that gamble? Voting is the ONE time in your existence when everyone is HANDED that opportunity...in fact, they are ENCOURAGED to make their opinions known. Young people had their chance to tell off the teacher and actually have the teacher fired.

I'd never go back to being a young person.


I'm 22 but I voted every chance that I got. I personally have a hard time understanding why more people my age don't vote.

afronaut
5th November 04, 04:00 PM
What do you say to the fact that Bush:

- Routinely speaks in a a way that makes you wonder why he speak in complete sentences.
- Doesn't know high school geography or science
- Only work experience before politics was as a thrice-failed businessman
- Is carefully protected from the press

In all honesty, why is it that he can't talk? At all? Ever?

Phrost
5th November 04, 04:00 PM
First of all, the only difficult thing about elite universities IS getting in. Second, the fact that you can't entertain even the notion that Bush's verbal difficulties and apparent cognitive shortcomings are a reasonable basis for believing that he might not be particularly smart is equally telling.

I'm with Xango; Bush is probably around the 75th percentile.

I missed the part where poetic eloquence was a requirement for being an intelligent person. Perhaps you can provide me a reference for this.

I scored 163 on an IQ test. And while I feel I communicate effectively under normal circumstances, I cannot honestly say that I'd do any better than the President in a press conference, with the entire world scrutinizing anything that comes out of my mouth.

Can you?

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 04:01 PM
Then name a standard of intelligence by which both Bush, and the rabid, vitriolic Liberal shills around here can both be judged.

As it stands, he's done more with his life than any of you ever will.

The man is catastrophically ineloquent. I'd say that's a reasonable debate point, and not just rabid fantasy. The guy didn't know the difference between Sweden and Switzerland, and repeatedly told members of his Cabinet who tried tocorrect him that they were wrong. Judging intelligence is extremely subjective. I prefer to stick with what can be proven. Namely, that he can't speak sense.

Whatever. Everyone judges success differently, and I have done what I have with far less help than he had. No one was putting money into my hands, squeezing me into elite schools, giving me businesses to run into the ground, or buying me shares in a baseball team. These issues generally aren't that important to me, but when you start with this crap that people can't criticize him because they failed to become President, or don't have as much money in the bank, you're goddamn right I'm going to get a little indignant.

Stick
5th November 04, 04:02 PM
I'll make you a deal Phrost, I'll never call Bush stupid or dumb ever again- ok, well, maybe for a year.

In fact, I tink that's a pretty good period of time: a year.

If I do take a baseless shot at the president's intelligence in that span of time, ban me. I shouldn't be a vitriolic liberal, lord knows I can't stand the vitriolic conservatives on this board, so maybe I should just go with a little "upon pain of death" to cure me of my whiny bitchy ways.

I am not saying I won't criticize and voice my amazement at some of the mistakes I'm sure he's going to make, just that I won't ever say he's an idiot for a period of 12 months.

And I'm serious.

afronaut
5th November 04, 04:03 PM
I'm waiting for an objective standard by which everyone here can be measured against the President.

He doesn't know things a President should know, and people who aren't the president know them. Also, he can't express himself clearly. If you can do those things, or know some or most of those things, doesn't that at least suggest, in an objective way, that you are smarter than the president? Or at least more attentive and diligent.

CrimsonTiger
5th November 04, 04:03 PM
Sorry for the double-post...additional thought:

It wasn't Bush alone that got elected. A party was elected. A team was elected. Even if Bush isn't Stephen Hawkins, he's surrounded by intelligent people who advise and discuss options with him.

And you can't claim they have an agenda. Everyone has an agenda.

I have to say that the results of this election scare me a little...he scraped by the first election and was under a shroud of doubt for much of America until 9/11. Is this going to carry him through the next 4 years?

Rigante
5th November 04, 04:03 PM
Some of you guys are reallly pathetic. The election was won or lost depending upon which side you are with, fair and square and yet now you call the winners stupid etc. Is this what you do when you get beaten in a sparring match. Do you go out and say the lost match was all due to bad luck , or maybe you were sick, maybe he cheated or maybe it was the wrong phase of the moon. Grow up. We live in a democracy, sometimes you win sometimes you lose.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 04:05 PM
I missed the part where poetic eloquence was a requirement for being an intelligent person. Perhaps you can provide me a reference for this.


I missed the part where I said that.

Wounded Ronin
5th November 04, 04:05 PM
I missed the part where poetic eloquence was a requirement for being an intelligent person. Perhaps you can provide me a reference for this.

I scored 163 on an IQ test. And while I feel I communicate effectively under normal circumstances, I cannot honestly say that I'd do any better than the President in a press conference, with the entire world scrutinizing anything that comes out of my mouth.

Can you?


I'd argue that one qualification to be the president is precisely the ability to speak very well to the world in a high pressure situation. If you *were* the president, I'd expect you to be well spoken no matter how bad the situation.

None of our previous presidents stuttered as much.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 04:07 PM
I just think this criterion for criticizing him is stupid. Unbelievably.

Phrost
5th November 04, 04:07 PM
By the same standards, I have done more with my life than you, Wastrel.

Yet you feel you're smarter than I am, I'll lay money on it.


The fact is, Bush only has to be smart enough as President to surround himself with smarter people. That's how leadership works.

Why do you think I wanted you as a moderator here Wastrel?

If you want to measure his intelligence, wait until his term is up, and then discuss the fruits of his efforts.

But saying he's stupid is the exact same stuck-up superior attitude that cost Kerry the election in the first place. And until Liberals realize this, and come out of their ivory towers of intellectualism from which they're launching salvos against the regular folk of America, they're going to continue to lose ground in future elections.

It's simple common sense.

You know, "common".

afronaut
5th November 04, 04:08 PM
I missed the part where poetic eloquence was a requirement for being an intelligent person. Perhaps you can provide me a reference for this.

I scored 163 on an IQ test. And while I feel I communicate effectively under normal circumstances, I cannot honestly say that I'd do any better than the President in a press conference, with the entire world scrutinizing anything that comes out of my mouth.

Can you?

I don't think I could do them either. Here are other things I can't or probably couldn't do:

- Negotiate with foreign leaders
- Command the military
- Help set economic policy
- Nominate federal judges

... and so forth. But I'M NOT THE PRESIDENT AND I SHOULDN'T BE. He can't do these things and he shouldn't be it either. Just because I couldn't do it doesn't mean I couldn't say whether or not someone else could.

afronaut
5th November 04, 04:11 PM
Some of you guys are reallly pathetic. The election was won or lost depending upon which side you are with, fair and square and yet now you call the winners stupid etc. Is this what you do when you get beaten in a sparring match. Do you go out and say the lost match was all due to bad luck , or maybe you were sick, maybe he cheated or maybe it was the wrong phase of the moon. Grow up. We live in a democracy, sometimes you win sometimes you lose.

No, we lost fair and square. No one cheated and I don't think anyone here said that, at least I didn't.

In a sparring match, if you win, you are the better fighter, that time, anyway. Once you leave the mat / ring, that's it. It doesn't matter any more, not really.

Bush wins, and more kids will get blown up by roadside bombs for no reason. More dead Iraqi civilians. More kids in poverty. More sick people from environmental pollution, more fiscal instability. That still happens.

We are saying: We lost because more people who voted believe what the president believes and that sucks and here's why.

In a democracy people dissent. That's the whole point.

Phrost
5th November 04, 04:12 PM
I don't think I could do them either. Here are other things I can't or probably couldn't do:

- Negotiate with foreign leaders
- Command the military
- Help set economic policy
- Nominate federal judges

... and so forth. But I'M NOT THE PRESIDENT AND I SHOULDN'T BE. He can't do these things and he shouldn't be it either. Just because I couldn't do it doesn't mean I couldn't say whether or not someone else could.

So what qualifies you to judge his intelligence if you feel you're not superior to him? Other than the First Amendment, obviously?

It's an entirely different thing to say "Bush is embarassingly inept at public speaking" than "BUSH IEUZ DUMBZOR ROOFLE".

Because the former is not what's being said by the 48% of the country that voted for Kerry.

And if you think public speaking is the primary criteria for being a good leader, I'd like to refer you to the thread about madatory voting, in which I've posted a few things relevant to that line of thought.

When Condi Rice writes her memoirs in about 20 years, and makes comment on Bush's intelligence, I'll listen to what she has to say because:

A.) She's smarter than all of you

and

B.) She's actually in a position to make a judgement on it, unlike any of you.

Wounded Ronin
5th November 04, 04:12 PM
By the same standards, I have done more with my life than you, Wastrel.

Yet you feel you're smarter than I am, I'll lay money on it.


The fact is, Bush only has to be smart enough as President to surround himself with smarter people. That's how leadership works.

Why do you think I wanted you as a moderator here Wastrel?

If you want to measure his intelligence, wait until his term is up, and then discuss the fruits of his efforts.

But saying he's stupid is the exact same stuck-up superior attitude that cost Kerry the election in the first place. And until Liberals realize this, and come out of their ivory towers of intellectualism from which they're launching salvos against the regular folk of America, they're going to continue to lose ground in future elections.

It's simple common sense.

You know, "common".

Isn't this also a carictature? The idea of the democrats being all ivory tower "launching salvos against the regular folk of America"?


Yes, Bush won the election, but the split between Bush and Kerry was still in the neighborhood of 50/50. If Kerry really only had the support of these mythical ivory tower guys who for some reason hate "the regular folk of America", then the margin would have been much bigger, yes?

Stick
5th November 04, 04:14 PM
But saying he's stupid is the exact same stuck-up superior attitude that cost Kerry the election in the first place. And until Liberals realize this, and come out of their ivory towers of intellectualism from which they're launching salvos against the regular folk of America, they're going to continue to lose ground in future elections.


Maybe the regular folk should do something irregular, like read a book.

And my deal stands if you want it.


Isn't this also a carictature? The idea of the democrats being all ivory tower "launching salvos against the regular folk of America"?

It is, but that doesn't seem to matter. Apparently, by its very definition, one cannot be a liberal and maintain one's status as an "average/regular American".

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 04:17 PM
By the same standards, I have done more with my life than you, Wastrel.

Not a discussion that even concerns me.


Yet you feel you're smarter than I am, I'll lay money on it.

Well, then you've got an issue there. I think many people have different sorts of aptitudes, and know different things, and that measuring relative intelligence is unproductive.



The fact is, Bush only has to be smart enough as President to surround himself with smarter people. That's how leadership works.

Why do you think I wanted you as a moderator here Wastrel?

If you want to measure his intelligence, wait until his term is up, and then discuss the fruits of his efforts.

But saying he's stupid is the exact same stuck-up superior attitude that cost Kerry the election in the first place. And until Liberals realize this, and come out of their ivory towers of intellectualism from which they're launching salvos against the regular folk of America, they're going to continue to lose ground in future elections.

It's simple common sense.

You know, "common".

You've got to be kidding. You're the one saying that a college degree is some sort of requirement to be considered intelligent. I'm the one saying it's not! That is the only point I'm making on this thread. That you are utilizing a baseless and elitist criterion.

I didn't call him dumb, stupid etc. The only bone I threw in that direction is that he has declined considerably since 2000, and that it's probably due to some sort of onset of mild senility. I've seen a lot of footage of him debating Richards and he was, as I already said, a much more agile and witty speaker.

But I don't consider that a very substantive question. Policy concerns me. Real politics concern me.

You're inconsistent. What basis did you have for telling me most political scientists are socialists? None. But I never said to you, "When did you get your political science degree?" I just tried to explain why that was really implausible with genuine, doctrinal evidence.

Phrost
5th November 04, 04:18 PM
Isn't this also a carictature? The idea of the democrats being all ivory tower "launching salvos against the regular folk of America"?


Yes, Bush won the election, but the split between Bush and Kerry was still in the neighborhood of 50/50. If Kerry really only had the support of these mythical ivory tower guys who for some reason hate "the regular folk of America", then the margin would have been much bigger, yes?

It'd be a caricature if Bush wasn't being assaulted by the Literati for not being one of them. Otherwise it's just an accurate generalisation.

You really feel the other 48% all voted against Bush or for Kerry on one issue alone?

Minorities want more attention paid to their issues.
Labor Unions want more government protection.
Leftist idealogues want a greater shift to Socialism
Truman Democrats want to vote and get back home to their knitting.

...etc.

I was refering specifically to the Liberal Elite who've seemingly taken over the Democratic party and taken it so far left it doesn't even CARE what the average American feels on issues.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 04:19 PM
Isn't this also a carictature? The idea of the democrats being all ivory tower "launching salvos against the regular folk of America"?


Yes, Bush won the election, but the split between Bush and Kerry was still in the neighborhood of 50/50. If Kerry really only had the support of these mythical ivory tower guys who for some reason hate "the regular folk of America", then the margin would have been much bigger, yes?


It's culture war blather. Conservative media demagogues persuaded people that a few critical theory, gender studies, and history professors were taking over American universities. Never mind the fact that conservative as well as liberal administrations are packed to the gills with academics.

Phrost
5th November 04, 04:20 PM
Maybe the regular folk should do something irregular, like read a book.


Thank you for summing up for me why the Democrats lost this election.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 04:20 PM
It'd be a caricature if Bush wasn't being assaulted by the Literati for not being one of them. Otherwise it's just an accurate generalisation.

You really feel the other 48% all voted against Bush or for Kerry on one issue alone?

Minorities want more attention paid to their issues.
Labor Unions want more government protection.
Leftist idealogues want a greater shift to Socialism
Truman Democrats want to vote and get back home to their knitting.

...etc.

I was refering specifically to the Liberal Elite who've seemingly taken over the Democratic party and taken it so far left it doesn't even CARE what the average American feels on issues.

I don;t think that with a 51/49 split on the popular vote we should be talking about what the average American thinks. It's clear that average Americans split the difference.

afronaut
5th November 04, 04:21 PM
By the same standards, I have done more with my life than you, Wastrel.

Yet you feel you're smarter than I am, I'll lay money on it.


The fact is, Bush only has to be smart enough as President to surround himself with smarter people. That's how leadership works.

Why do you think I wanted you as a moderator here Wastrel?

If you want to measure his intelligence, wait until his term is up, and then discuss the fruits of his efforts.

But saying he's stupid is the exact same stuck-up superior attitude that cost Kerry the election in the first place. And until Liberals realize this, and come out of their ivory towers of intellectualism from which they're launching salvos against the regular folk of America, they're going to continue to lose ground in future elections.

It's simple common sense.

You know, "common".

I think the fruits of his first term are pretty clear. He's like Hoover, but with a shitty war thrown in.

The "smart people to help him" thing goes so far. Yes, leaders delegate and the president can do everything himself and picking good people is huge part of his job.

Here are his people:

An Attorney General who wipes his ass with the bill of rights and is such a repressed fundy that he had the topless statue of Justice in the Great Hall of the Justice Department building covered up.

A Secretary of Defense that recommends the wrong war, and then can't fight it properly. Or get his men the proper gear.

A Secretary of Education who call the National Education Association a "terrorist organization."

An EPA chief and Vice-President who sold our energy policy to oil, gas and coal concerns. The money is good, but we'll all get sicker and we'll still be whore to Saudi Arabia. Not good for national security.

Federal judges with little experience at the district or state level and are barely qualified ideologues.

A Health and Human Services Secretary and Homeland Security chief who haven't gotten around to securing our chemical plants, nuclear facilities or water supplies. Or gotten any more smallpox vaccine.

A science and research infrastructure that doesn't like or believe in science, but would like Jesus to cure disease instead.

Second, as many good people as he has around him, the president has certain duties that he and he alone, by Constitutional mandate, must perform. Only he controls nuclear weapons. He negotiates our foreign policy. He commands th military.

He MUST do these things alone, because we elected HIM, not Rumsfeld or Rice. Him. The buck still stops at that desk, whether Harry Truman is still sitting there or not.

God I miss Truman.

Beatdown Richie
5th November 04, 04:23 PM
So what qualifies you to judge his intelligence if you feel you're not superior to him? Other than the First Amendment, obviously?

I see this argument a lot, and it's a silly one. By the same token:
- you're not a cook, what gives you the right to say the food in that restaurant is bad?
- you're not a musician, how dare you call Kelly Osbourne a bad singer?
- why do you say Bob Sapp's technique is bad, do you think you could beat him?

You don't have to be able to do something to recognize someone else is screwing up doing it. And there is an arbitrary number of quotes from Bush that document he's not only a bad speaker, he also does not know what he's saying. Why you keep defending him is beyond my comprehension.

Wounded Ronin
5th November 04, 04:25 PM
It'd be a caricature if Bush wasn't being assaulted by the Literati for not being one of them. Otherwise it's just an accurate generalisation.

You really feel the other 48% all voted against Bush or for Kerry on one issue alone?

Minorities want more attention paid to their issues.
Labor Unions want more government protection.
Leftist idealogues want a greater shift to Socialism
Truman Democrats want to vote and get back home to their knitting.

...etc.

I was refering specifically to the Liberal Elite who've seemingly taken over the Democratic party and taken it so far left it doesn't even CARE what the average American feels on issues.

But Phrost, I don't think that anyone would disagree with you if all you're saying is that "Not everyone who voted for Kerry did so because Bush stutters and therefore sounds kind of stupid."

Phrost
5th November 04, 04:26 PM
You've got to be kidding. You're the one saying that a college degree is some sort of requirement to be considered intelligent. I'm the one saying it's not! That is the only point I'm making on this thread. That you are utilizing a baseless and elitist criterion.

No, I'm not saying it's an absolute indicator of intelligence. What I am saying is that it is AN indicator of SOME intelligence when the man is being represented by certain people as having NONE AT ALL.



I didn't call him dumb, stupid etc. The only bone I threw in that direction is that he has declined considerably since 2000, and that it's probably due to some sort of onset of mild senility. I've seen a lot of footage of him debating Richards and he was, as I already said, a much more agile and witty speaker.

Funny, I agree. None of what I'd said was directed at you. Yet you felt the need to rebut it.



You're inconsistent. What basis did you have for telling me most political scientists are socialists? None. But I never said to you, "When did you get your political science degree?" I just tried to explain why that was really implausible with genuine, doctrinal evidence.

You should have called me on it even more directly then. That's how rational people correct assumptions based on a lack of knowledge. Nothing wrong with this.

But I stand by my point that many of the people who criticise the President's intelligence, based on his public speaking ability, are easily no smarter than him, and probably nowhere close.

And measuring a man's intelligence by his aptitude at public speaking is unscientific and subjective.

You're not a speech pathologist now are you?

afronaut
5th November 04, 04:27 PM
Bush is a great politican, people love him when they are in the room with them. He can make people feel safe, whether they are or not, and he makes them feel at ease. He knows what motivates them and what frightens them. He is outstanding in all these capacities.

But "smart" like "knows things" and "can digest and use information" and "express himself" he is not.

Stick
5th November 04, 04:28 PM
You're telling me that this is all about the decent, honest, hard-working American against the evil, conceited liberal- who obviously is not American by his liberal outlook (conservative values are a requirement to be considered an American in the post '04 America)- so forgive me if I can't take this, and I call it like I see it.

I have to talk to college students in the 3rd or 4th year who can't name the prime minister of Britain, the Secretary general of the UN, or even our own secretary of state, and as this world is becoming increasingly gloablized, well, damnit, if this doesn''t concern me.

afronaut
5th November 04, 04:28 PM
How about this: If he's so smart, name three things he's done right. Is that objective enough?

Phrost
5th November 04, 04:29 PM
I think the fruits of his first term are pretty clear. He's like Hoover, but with a shitty war thrown in.

The "smart people to help him" thing goes so far. Yes, leaders delegate and the president can do everything himself and picking good people is huge part of his job.

Here are his people:

An Attorney General who wipes his ass with the bill of rights and is such a repressed fundy that he had the topless statue of Justice in the Great Hall of the Justice Department building covered up.

A Secretary of Defense that recommends the wrong war, and then can't fight it properly. Or get his men the proper gear.

A Secretary of Education who call the National Education Association a "terrorist organization."

An EPA chief and Vice-President who sold our energy policy to oil, gas and coal concerns. The money is good, but we'll all get sicker and we'll still be whore to Saudi Arabia. Not good for national security.

Federal judges with little experience at the district or state level and are barely qualified ideologues.

A Health and Human Services Secretary and Homeland Security chief who haven't gotten around to securing our chemical plants, nuclear facilities or water supplies. Or gotten any more smallpox vaccine.

A science and research infrastructure that doesn't like or believe in science, but would like Jesus to cure disease instead.

Second, as many good people as he has around him, the president has certain duties that he and he alone, by Constitutional mandate, must perform. Only he controls nuclear weapons. He negotiates our foreign policy. He commands th military.

He MUST do these things alone, because we elected HIM, not Rumsfeld or Rice. Him. The buck still stops at that desk, whether Harry Truman is still sitting there or not.

God I miss Truman.

Now THAT's a well-reasoned argument, much better than the "BUSH IS DUMBZOR OMG LET ME GET BACK 2 THE DISHES B4 THE BOSS SEEZ ME ON THE COmPUTr" tripe that's been spewed here.

Thanks.

Deadpan Scientist
5th November 04, 04:29 PM
We might as well just have icons next to our names that indicate the standing of your Alma Mater in the US News and World Report rankings, standardized test scores, etc.

By this measure DJeter1234 and BlackBeltNow are smarter than me, but I'm smarter than Xango. We should just create a special forum for those who attended second and third tier schools and call it "Stupidland".

Do we get to be ranked by our current institution, or just ugrad?

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 04:31 PM
Phrost, you're making this argument about the decent, honest, hard-working American against the evil, conceited liberal- who obviously is not American by his liberal outlook (conservative values are a requirement to be considered an American in the post '04 America)- so forgive me if I can't take thisand call it like I see it.

I have to talk to college students in the 3rd or 4th year who can't name the prime minister of Britain, the Secretary general of the UN, or even our own secretary of state, and as this world is becoming increasingly gloablized, well GOD DAMNIT IF THIS DOESN:T CONCERN ME!

-

Dai-Tenshi, try this edit instead.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 04:35 PM
No, I'm not saying it's an absolute indicator of intelligence. What I am saying is that it is AN indicator of SOME intelligence when the man is being represented by certain people as having NONE AT ALL.

Well, what I saw you saying is that one shouldn't comment on his faculties unless one holds a degree from an institution judged to be equally "elite" by the hoi polloi.




Funny, I agree. None of what I'd said was directed at you. Yet you felt the need to rebut it.

It was an irrational and elitist criterion. And it was directed at everyone.


You should have called me on it even more directly then. That's how rational people correct assumptions based on a lack of knowledge. Nothing wrong with this.

There's no better way than to use reason and evidence. Simply asserting that you were wrong would have been stupid and rude.


But I stand by my point that many of the people who criticise the President's intelligence, based on his public speaking ability, are easily no smarter than him, and probably nowhere close.

No doubt.


And measuring a man's intelligence by his aptitude at public speaking is unscientific and subjective.

Good to see we agree.

Wounded Ronin
5th November 04, 04:35 PM
It's culture war blather. Conservative media demagogues persuaded people that a few critical theory, gender studies, and history professors were taking over American universities. Never mind the fact that conservative as well as liberal administrations are packed to the gills with academics.


Not to mention that those people in universities who *are* extreme, falling-over-the-edge left tend to inspire ridicule more than anything.

Once upon a time, when I was an undergrad, I had a girlfriend who was really into the extreme liberal ideology stuff. Because of her, I signed up on a listerv for an extreme campus group, right?

So, one day, the university police send out an email, a crime alert. Apparently, someone who was in a fraternity had been stabbed by a local fellow who was described as being african american, and having a "white pick" in his hair.

So, then this extreme group that I'm on the listserv of sends this angry email off to the university police, saying how incredibly racist this description is, how describing the "white pick" in the stabber's hair would inflame the "fetid imagination" of the prejudiced student body, and then even implied that the victim deserved what he got because he must have been cheating on a drug deal.

Naturally, I thought this was pretty ridiculous, so I sent out an email to the listserv and told them that they wre being stupidly extreme and that this would only alienate people.

So, then I got flamed by lots of people who implied that I was racist, and so I send a reply, "Hah! I'm half Japanese, therefore a minority, and therefore not a valid target for the race card!"

And we flame back and forth for a while, and finally, some person said something to the effect of, "Us minorities are expected to simultaneously study, grapple with social inequity, and explain to big dumb whitey how we are wronged! I can't take it anymore! Take me off the listserv!"

I think the flame war ended thenabouts.


Now, let me pose this rhetorical question: Do you think that anyone actually takes extremists like that seriously? Or do you think that most people just find them ridiculous and counter-productive like I did?

As far as politics is concerned, does anyone think that allying yourself with people who are that extreme and who accomplish nothing but alienation is a smart move politically? Would any politician with ambition seriously represent only such an extreme group? Of course not. Doing that simply wouldn't make sense.

So, in essence, I think that the idea that the democrats have somehow started only representing extreme left academic type people dosen't make sense at all. Rather, it sounds more like propaganda that might be promoted by their political opponents.

Stick
5th November 04, 04:36 PM
I need beer, and maybe some sleep.

Phrost
5th November 04, 04:37 PM
Oh for god's sake.

Fuck you Phrost, you're making this bullshit arguement about the decent, honest, hard-working American against the evil, conceited liberal- who obviously is not American by his liberal outlook (conservative values are a requirement to be considered an American in the post '04 America)- so forgive me if I can't take this bullshit and call it like I see it.

-


No, I'm making this about elitist liberals in the media and otherwise calling "59 Million" Americans, stupid, along with certain persons here calling the President the same.

You made the crack about regular people doing something "irregular" like "reading". Don't get pissy when I call you on it. That's an elitist attitude, like it or not.

Rigante
5th November 04, 04:37 PM
A big fundamental mistake is to assume that all the people who voted for Bush are evangleical conservatives or homophobes. Granted there are probably a lot of both in the party. But it is just as silly to say the democrats are all like Michael Moore. The Republicans will always tend to get the big business, the evangelicals etc. The democrats will always tend to get the minorities, the disinfranchised, the unions. etc. But folks what matters is the middles because that is where the swing votes are. My wife and I are highly educated (I am not making any pretenses about intelligence here), we believe in a strong military and keeping individual income tax low. We are pro-choice, pro-gun rights, pro-stem cell research and pro gay marriage and we are not by any means alone in these views. Many people in the middle have similiar values perhaps best described as fiscally and militarily conservative but moderate to liberal on social values. The Republicans won by aligning themselves with more of the values than did the Democrats. It would do the Democrats well to consider realigning themselves more to the middle.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 04:38 PM
Hey Phrost, he went back and edited that nastiness out, just saying.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 04:40 PM
A big fundamental mistake is to assume that all the people who voted for Bush are evangleical conservatives or homophobes. Granted there are probably a lot of both in the party. But it is just as silly to say the democrats are all like Michael Moore. The Republicans will always tend to get the big business, the evangelicals etc. The democrats will always tend to get the minorities, the disinfranchised, the unions. etc. But folks what matters is the middles because that is where the swing votes are. My wife and I are highly educated (I am not making any pretenses about intelligence here), we believe in a strong military and keeping individual income tax low. We are pro-choice, pro-gun rights, pro-stem cell research and pro gay marriage and we are not by any means alone in these views. Many people in the middle have similiar values perhaps best described as fiscally and militarily conservative but moderate to liberal on social values. The Republicans won by aligning themselves with more of the values than did the Democrats. It would do the Democrats well to consider realigning themselves more to the middle.

This is a good sort of colloquial example of how it works. One point though is that only recently did the religious vote head red. The base Republican organizations are quite open about the fact that anti-homsexuality is what they used to win this election. I refer you to:

http://www.redstate.org/story/2004/11/5/141135/715

And this is one of the milder accounts out there.

Phrost
5th November 04, 04:43 PM
Works for me.

Rigante has a point.

I just don't think there is enough being done by either party to distance themselves from the fucking nutjob extremists that support them. There is just too much goddamn vitriol, and not enough reasonable discourse.

If "Bush is dumb" is but a minor reason why you'd vote against him, I have no problem with that. But when it's the first thing out of your lips as to why you don't like him, I have no respect for you.

afronaut
5th November 04, 04:45 PM
A big fundamental mistake is to assume that all the people who voted for Bush are evangleical conservatives or homophobes. Granted there are probably a lot of both in the party. But it is just as silly to say the democrats are all like Michael Moore. The Republicans will always tend to get the big business, the evangelicals etc. The democrats will always tend to get the minorities, the disinfranchised, the unions. etc. But folks what matters is the middles because that is where the swing votes are. My wife and I are highly educated (I am not making any pretenses about intelligence here), we believe in a strong military and keeping individual income tax low. We are pro-choice, pro-gun rights, pro-stem cell research and pro gay marriage and we are not by any means alone in these views. Many people in the middle have similiar values perhaps best described as fiscally and militarily conservative but moderate to liberal on social values. The Republicans won by aligning themselves with more of the values than did the Democrats. It would do the Democrats well to consider realigning themselves more to the middle.

Democrats are for more of those things than Republicans are. Look at the party platforms. In fact, Republicans are for almost none of them.

Phrost
5th November 04, 04:45 PM
Do we get to be ranked by our current institution, or just ugrad?

I am SO smarter than you.

Stick
5th November 04, 04:48 PM
And I am not an elitist. Why, some of my best friends are red necks.

Seriously, you can't ignore the fact that there's a considerable amount of ignorance with regards to the issues here, and ignoring that fact- or calling those who point it out "elitists"- only does a disservice to those who do need to pay more attention. Yeah I was snarky about it, but if I just said "some people are ignorant" it would've been really boring.

Also, the conservative attitude of moral superiority hardly makes me feel at ease.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 04:52 PM
I don't like the Bush administration mostly because I have an extreme disagreement with the ideological foundations of the primarily Wolfowitz-formulated foreign policy. He represents a school of thought within political science that I would characterize as simplistic. To keep this short, his wing of the discipline sees states as black boxes, their internal politics are irrelevant to statecraft, war or diplomacy because the only thing that matters is power; they want power, and this drives all their motivations.

What's wrong with that? Well, look at the pronouns in that sentence for example. The fact is that domestic politics are immensely important to understanding the behavior of states in war, in peace, in the economy. Furthermore, he seems to have bought into a little piece of the international politics literature known as Democratic Peace Theory. Popularly, this is known as the theory that no two states with a McDonald's in them have fought a war.

To put it plainly, it's a load of bollocks. Here is a brief treatment: http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/992/schwartzskinner.html

Warning to all those who know the difference. This is NOT like a peer-reviewed article in political science. The Hoover Institute is a bit weird. And they get away with saying some ridiculous things in that article that you never could get away with in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, for example.

Wounded Ronin
5th November 04, 04:53 PM
I started reading Redstate since Wastrel had linked to it. It seems that the right is just as guilty of sterotyping negatively the left as the left is of the right.



The trance-like 1990s ill-prepared prosperous suburbia for scenes of flag-draped coffins. Far better to invest in an IPO, watch the latest sex farce at the multiplex and savor the taste of exotic coffees than to dare mighty things in the protection of one’s country and in the advancement of its interests.

Now the reality of life in a broken world has shaken us, and we do not like being shaken. To borrow a line from the classic film Meet John Doe, “the world has been shaved by a drunken barber.” As we vacationed from history under the dreamlike regime of Bill Clinton, we thought we were safe and cocooned. Yes, there were mild unpleasantnesses here and there, but by and large, times were fat and the world was America’s oyster.

This episode was illusory. For America, the inebriate hand of history’s malign tonsor was only stropping its dull blade (although slashing away with aplomb elsewhere -– witness Rwanda, the Congo, etc.).

Conservatives, given their view of human nature (it is fallen), are much more prepared for conflict that liberals, with their view that through therapy, equitable distribution of resources and earnest communication, man’s perfectible nature can be encouraged along. The fundamental difference between these worldviews is stark and raw and has a great gulf fixed between it. And, thus, the rage of the left when it comes to Iraq.





See? It cuts both ways. Here's an example of conservatives glibly writing off liberals as being clueless propsperous suburbans whereas the *real* gritty people who know all about "fallen" human nature are all tough and "prepared for conflict".

But that's just as silly and sterotype-driven as anything.

It's just like the students in my earlier example going on about how the other students who weren't part of their organization must have "fetid imaginations" and be incredible closet racists.

Inflammatory, extreme, and downright unrealistic.



EDIT: I forgot to give the link: http://social.redstate.org/story/2004/10/13/25533/642

Stick
5th November 04, 04:54 PM
Uh.... Rigante, did you miss the part were the republicans are VERY pro-life, very anti-stem cell, and very gays can't get married?

Phrost
5th November 04, 04:56 PM
I get the distinct impression that many of us arguing here are really Moderate to Centrist Libertarians just lining up on different sides due to the fact that we don't have a party of our own.

Rigante
5th November 04, 04:57 PM
You could vote for Bush and support Gay and Lesbian rights. In my state I had every intention of voting against any amendment banning same sex marriages and yet I could still vote for Bush. It was clear with Kerry even by his own admission during the 3rd debate that I would take a tax hit under him. Also since he had voted against the first Iraq war even though it had large international support, it really gave me question as to whether he would use the militariy when it was needed.

Stick
5th November 04, 04:59 PM
Registered independant.

The third party will never be realized... it makes me want to cry.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 05:01 PM
You could vote for Bush and support Gay and Lesbian rights. In my state I had every intention of voting against any amendment banning same sex marriages and yet I could still vote for Bush. It was clear with Kerry even by his own admission during the 3rd debate that I would take a tax hit under him. Also since he had voted against the first Iraq war even though it had large international support, it really gave me question as to whether he would use the militariy when it was needed.


You can't vote on federal legislation, nor can you do anything about the judicial appointments in the next four years, which may include a few Supreme Court nominations, and at least one. 55% Republican in the Senate....Oh boy.

Phrost
5th November 04, 05:02 PM
Registered independant.

The third party will never be realized... it makes me want to cry.

A journey of a thousand steps...

Stick
5th November 04, 05:05 PM
Isn't it "the journey of a thousand miles"?

Ya know,; the thousand mile journey begins with a single step..... a thousand step journey would be like, I don't know, less than a mile....

Just say'n...

afronaut
5th November 04, 05:05 PM
You could vote for Bush and support Gay and Lesbian rights. In my state I had every intention of voting against any amendment banning same sex marriages and yet I could still vote for Bush. .

But it would be a terrible idea. The president would support a Constitutional Amendment to ban it, and would sign it. Given that Congress and lots of state legislatures and voters would dig it, a President to oppose it would one of the only recourses.


It was clear with Kerry even by his own admission during the 3rd debate that I would take a tax hit under him. .
Unless you make more than $200,000 per year, then you wouldn't. Consult the party platform for details.

Also since he had voted against the first Iraq war even though it had large international support, it really gave me question as to whether he would use the militariy when it was needed.

Okay, I can see that.

Wounded Ronin
5th November 04, 05:08 PM
I get the distinct impression that many of us arguing here are really Moderate to Centrist Libertarians just lining up on different sides due to the fact that we don't have a party of our own.


I'm pretty far left, but I registered as an independent.

Note my "1950s Godless Communism" style. :D

Phrost
5th November 04, 05:10 PM
I'm pretty far left, but I registered as an independent.

Note my "1950s Godless Communism" style. :D


Oh.

Well in that case. DIE COMMIE BASTARD!

Wounded Ronin
5th November 04, 05:11 PM
*escapes from Phrost's NHB rage by diving into Dr. Evil's time portal to the 50s*

SCO
5th November 04, 05:16 PM
What`s the problem anyway? Those who are unhappy with Bush`s victory bitch a bit, those who are happy with it can lean back, their champion won.

Phrost,
if you are annoyed about my obvious little troll on page one (I considered using smileys, but I still don`t think it was necessary), well, I guess everyone`s a bit unhappy about something written on this board some time.
I remember reading some comments of yours about Europe that I thought were negative cliché to the extreme, but I don`t take it personally.
If you are overly unhappy about me having posted on this board, I would be content with it if you delete the total amount of my posts on this board (but please the lot, not only in Current Events) together with my account, if you wish to do so.

Rigante
5th November 04, 05:24 PM
Two thirds of the states would have to ratify any amendment which would be very controversial. I didnt count but how many states did Kerry get. If he got any more than one third then a amendment against gay marriage would fail. I also think that many swing states would go against an amendment.

Regarding Kerry and taxes, I listened very closely to his answering the question about taxes and it was clear I would take a hit and I already pay close to 40,000 in taxes per year which I think is quite enough.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 05:32 PM
Among blue states Michigan, and Oregon voted to ban gay marriage. Ohio did too. That would pretty much do it.

afronaut
5th November 04, 05:34 PM
Regarding Kerry and taxes, I listened very closely to his answering the question about taxes and it was clear I would take a hit and I already pay close to 40,000 in taxes per year which I think is quite enough.

What made you think that? Do you own a business?

Shuma-Gorath
5th November 04, 05:50 PM
As it stands, he's done more with his life than any of you ever will.

It would be nice if the majority of it had a net positive effect.

I think I'm going to stop posting here until this election crap cools down. Especially you, Phrost.

Rigante
5th November 04, 05:53 PM
The tax incentives he described to offset the removal of the present tax reduction would not impact me and thus result in higher taxes for me. In essence even though I dont make 200,000 I would still end up paying higher taxes by Kerry's own description of his plan. On the other hand I am concerned about possibe changes to Social Security that Bush has talked about. Being 50 I would be eligible for it in 12 to 17 years and I hope there will still be a reasonable monthly check for me after putting very large of sums into the social security system for all these years. I know the system needs change but if they are going to let a lot of it go private then they need to make sure that there is at least enough money put into the system to pay for those who have already contributed heavily.

Phrost
5th November 04, 05:53 PM
What`s the problem anyway? Those who are unhappy with Bush`s victory bitch a bit, those who are happy with it can lean back, their champion won.

Phrost,
if you are annoyed about my obvious little troll on page one (I considered using smileys, but I still don`t think it was necessary), well, I guess everyone`s a bit unhappy about something written on this board some time.
I remember reading some comments of yours about Europe that I thought were negative cliché to the extreme, but I don`t take it personally.
If you are overly unhappy about me having posted on this board, I would be content with it if you delete the total amount of my posts on this board (but please the lot, not only in Current Events) together with my account, if you wish to do so.

No need whatsoever for this. Posts here are rarely deleted for any reason.

katana
5th November 04, 06:11 PM
In all honesty, why is it that he can't talk? At all? Ever?

He has some good speeches (his state of the union addresses are usually pretty decent). He does give good interviews from time to time, and his press conferences (seen in entirety and not the edited soundbites) are sometimes good and sometimes just okay. He's not a gifted orator but most people aren't. I can point out people who are great orators but are probably much bigger buffons (Al Sharpton comes to mind).

SCO
5th November 04, 06:23 PM
No need whatsoever for this. Posts here are rarely deleted for any reason.
It`s not an appeasement thing, I meant to let your whim be the flip of a coin, you can still make up your mind.
I had been considering asking for deletion anyway, for reasons unrelated, not linked to petty arguments.
But I guess it`s just not nice in the unlikely case someone does for some odd reason want to read an older thread.

Dochter
5th November 04, 06:28 PM
Why I voted pretty much democratic this year:

Legislating 'morality' should not be anywhere on a ballot, nor a platform for the dominany party.
The erroding of environmental protections so the wealthy become more wealthy
That I think this adminstration has zero in the way of diplomacy and has made a mess of foreign policy. The earth is large and cannot go it alone.
That's pretty much it, and in that order.

For the record though I don't think Bush is particularly bright, at least not in the areas neccessary for him to do his job (knowledge of history, foreign relations, ohh I don't know geography; then there is the fact that he can't communicate effectively which is really pne of the most important aspects of his job). I don't think he is a complete moron though, I'm not convinced nepotism alone will get you into Wharton.

People that voted for him because of 'morality' I do fully consider ignorant though, and yes I am a tad elitist. I'm okay with that, I see cars driving through nevada with confederate flags or "In case of rapture, the car is yours" way to often to not reinforce such a thought.

Edit: Also, in regards to his surronding himself with people smarter than he, is that really the case? It seems that several of those who have left his administration have said that he doesn't accept dissent well at all and won't listen to contrary opinions. That is why in the debates his comments about being steadfast in resolve worried me. We all are wrong at times, you're a fool if you don't admit it and try and learn.

DCS
5th November 04, 06:35 PM
An Attorney General who .... is such a repressed fundy that he had the topless statue of Justice in the Great Hall of the Justice Department building covered up.


WTF?

Please, don't let this guy enter in an art gallery with a marker.

Phrost
5th November 04, 06:50 PM
Source please?

Xango
5th November 04, 06:55 PM
Isn't it "the journey of a thousand miles"?

Ya know,; the thousand mile journey begins with a single step..... a thousand step journey would be like, I don't know, less than a mile....

Just say'n...

Mile means "thousand"...as in a thousand steps.

Of course, a roman pace was two of our steps. FWIW.

DCS
5th November 04, 06:56 PM
Source please?

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18320&page=5&pp=15

Post #61 iirc

Rigante
5th November 04, 06:59 PM
I will be glad to see Ashcroft go. Its to bad though it looks like Powell is leaving.

Dochter
5th November 04, 07:00 PM
Source please?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1788845.stm
&
http://www.unitedstatesgovernment.net/coveringupjustice.htm

I know what I'm believing on this one.

Phrost
5th November 04, 07:09 PM
Occam's Razor.

It's highly unlikely.

Dochter
5th November 04, 07:11 PM
I'll assume you're agreeing.

If not you've got a fucked up idea of parsimony on this one.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 07:15 PM
He did. It's pretty well-documented, but hang on a sec.

Wounded Ronin
5th November 04, 07:16 PM
I remember hearing about it multiple times on the news.

Phrost
5th November 04, 07:18 PM
Just want to see a concrete source on it.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 07:19 PM
Actually that BBC article is pretty dang concrete.

Phrost
5th November 04, 07:26 PM
Putting up curtains for a backdrop is completely different than covering the statue with a cloth.

DCS
5th November 04, 07:28 PM
Different thing but same results.

Dochter
5th November 04, 07:31 PM
Putting up curtains for a backdrop is completely different than covering the statue with a cloth.


...uhhh.

Wow.

Mr_Mantis
5th November 04, 07:59 PM
Ashcroft did not make a public statement that he wanted to cover the statues. AFAIK.

But seriously, didn't they have plenty of blue backgrounds to film in front of in Washington? I mean, that was an $8,000 decision. Then he got heat for having the drapes there. He was accused of being a prude. If he did not want to portray that image, he should have removed the drapes from the statues of justice.

His act of omission comdemns him under the circumstances. His prosecutors would use similar conduct to conclude a defendant is guilty.

Phrost
5th November 04, 08:26 PM
...uhhh.

Wow.

The original statement left it to be assumed that Ashcroft, upon taking office, draped a cloth over the statue somewhat permenantly.

Phrost
5th November 04, 08:28 PM
Ashcroft did not make a public statement that he wanted to cover the statues. AFAIK.

His act of omission comdemns him under the circumstances. His prosecutors would use similar conduct to conclude a defendant is guilty.

Don't they call that "circumstantial evidence"?

Phrost
5th November 04, 08:29 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the guy's positions. I revile him.

But I'm not going to call for his lynching over something he may not have done without solid proof.

I'm rational like that.

Dochter
5th November 04, 08:30 PM
I didn't call for his lynching, I just think it makes him even more of a tool

Phrost
5th November 04, 08:33 PM
He's a tool without being accused of something he might not have done.

Doesn't mean he did it.

Sun Wukong
5th November 04, 08:41 PM
I'll agree that not enough people are elegantly pointing out the presidents short comings so I'll do it for them:

Bush is a big floppy headed sack of poo poo.

Bush obviously favors reach around's to direct prostate manipulation.

If Bush sucked any MORE cock he'd talk like mush mouth from Fat Albert and the Funky Bunch from his enormously inflated D.S.L.

Bush's daughter's make me strangely horny in a way that produces SO MUCH self loathing you'd think I was circling middle schools with bags of left over Halloween candy. (ok, that last bit is about me... but I can't wait for the BUSH DAUGHTER COCAINE INDUCED ORGY sex videos to come out) ---- NOT BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE HOT but because I don't think I could find anything more humiliating to watch while i masturbate.

Bush makes me feel so sick when I think about him as the "leader of the free world" that I've been thinking about achieving the "ultimate platonic ideal" on the white house lawn and then burning my own severed testicles in protest.

If I ever see Bush at my kid's little league game then I'm gonna go out of my way to make fun of his kids while I swill beer and make cat call's to his wife.

I HATE BUSH so much that I think if i were still in the army I'd DRY hump my X.O. while singing N'Sync lyrics, the very first time I got in a room alone with them so I could have the honor and unlimited IRONY of getting a "section eight" from the army that installs "democratic freedom" at the cost of at least 10,000 INNOCENT men, women and children in a country that didn't really wantus to come there and have an election we have no way of accounting for in terms of valid election practices. (so what good is democracy in a foreign land when they aren't assured that they have fairly elected their leaders? OH OH I SEE, it's the PRETENSE that they have that's important enough to kill so many people for... it's ALL SO MUCH BETTER NOW IN MY MIND.)

I despise the short sighted govermental politics that force our kids to say the pledge of allegiance the first thing every morning with the stipulation that any of them that happen to grow up to be gay won't be able to have a "family" with the people they love.

I just plain LOVE the warm and fuzzy feeling that we RE-ELECTED a president that's about as popular world wide as Saddam Hussein himself. (so who is burning saddam in effigy right now?)

I wish he wasn't the president so I could get away with putting a sack of burning shit on his doorstep every halloween and dumping pigs blood on his daughters like in the movie carrie.( that's right KFSS I SAID I'D LIKE TO DUMP PIGS BLOOD ON THEM) JUST so I could see if they freaked out and started killing everyone with their demonic psychic powers just SO i'd know if their familial stake line really did run all the way to hell.

Sometimes, when I'm drunk (as I am right now) and I've struck out around the bar while looking for a pig to bring home and play "let's pollute he gene pool" with me, I like to fantasize that I'm soiling G.W's brown eye with syphillitic semen so that when Ol' G-DUB finally goes mad with encephalitis and brain lessions I can see jus how closely he resembles Adolf Hitler and Napolean... the OTHER great western leaders who have destroyed as much good faith other countries have in their own in EVEN LESS TIME.

So to re-iterate, GW is the worst dookie swilling, cum gargling, donkey raping, coke sniffing, horse fondling, saprophitic, syphilitic, parasitic, paroxysmic, bastion of decrepitude and malaise of the politereate that has ever had enough grey matter to walk erect on dry land so much so that his protozoac ancestry probably would have chosen to evolve into barnacles rather than produce such an abyssmally disgusting organism.

Bush smells like dirty socks.

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 08:45 PM
You know, ketchens doesn't even try to maintain a pretense of objectivity or rationality here. This is a man pouring it out, without targeting any other posters as Nazis or Commies, so I say, let him.

Mr_Mantis
5th November 04, 09:24 PM
Don't they call that "circumstantial evidence"?

Yes, it is also known as "indirect evidence" and should be given an equal weight as direct evidence.

Direct evidence would be a memo, or some other recorded statement to the fact. Or a person who could testify as to personal knowledge of the fact.

A clearer example of indirect evidence is: When you wake up in the morning and see a foot of snow on the ground, the fact that there is snow on the ground is indirect evidence that it snowed overnight while you were sleeping.

DCS
5th November 04, 09:28 PM
An attorney giving law lessons for free!!!!!

"Indirect evidence" about the inminent end of the world.

patfromlogan
5th November 04, 09:38 PM
By the same standards, I have done more with my life than you, Wastrel.

Yet you feel you're smarter than I am, I'll lay money on it..

Big dif between smart and open to ideas. Not meaning to give you shit Phrost, that's one of Bush's strongest character points. He doesn't listen. Period. He and his people don't listen. I know this is true because a member of my church and his org (http://www.fcnl.org/whatis.htm) had the door shut in their face and they were told, "We don't talk to people who don't agree with us."

They have been DC regulars since 1943 anb that was a new experience for them.

Phrost
5th November 04, 10:19 PM
Big dif between smart and open to ideas. Not meaning to give you shit Phrost, that's one of Bush's strongest character points. He doesn't listen. Period. He and his people don't listen. I know this is true because a member of my church and his org (http://www.fcnl.org/whatis.htm) had the door shut in their face and they were told, "We don't talk to people who don't agree with us."

They have been DC regulars since 1943 anb that was a new experience for them.

But nobody's been arguing he's obstinant. I'd agree with that assessment.

They're saying he, and likewise anyone who voted for him, is dumb.

Stubborn and dumb might be cousins, but they're not twins.

Phrost
5th November 04, 10:39 PM
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Slideshows/_production/041104_election_intlreax/041104_intlreax_ss09.hmedium.jpg

The Wastrel
5th November 04, 10:44 PM
I love British journalism. Say what you want, but those bastards don't treat elected office holders with the kid gloves that they do over here.

Phrost
5th November 04, 11:23 PM
I dunno, Dan Rather's handling of the forged memo was pretty revolting. I'd rather have blatantly partisan news outlets over those that masquerade as "unbiased" despite having an obvious editorial agenda.

Dan Rather should be beaten like an Afghani woman in a mini-skirt under the Taliban regime.

(Standard disclaimer for the brain dead: I do not endorse violence against women. If you know anything about Dan Rather's journalistic "style", you'll get the joke.)

The Wastrel
6th November 04, 12:30 AM
I dunno, Dan Rather's handling of the forged memo was pretty revolting. I'd rather have blatantly partisan news outlets over those that masquerade as "unbiased" despite having an obvious editorial agenda.

Dan Rather should be beaten like an Afghani woman in a mini-skirt under the Taliban regime.

(Standard disclaimer for the brain dead: I do not endorse violence against women. If you know anything about Dan Rather's journalistic "style", you'll get the joke.)


That memo flap was hilarious. You do realize that Rather has been beaten before, don't you?

Phrost
6th November 04, 12:41 AM
Yep.

People have shitty memories.

[Edit: oh, you meant the "What's the frequency, Kenneth" bit, and not the last time he was busted for being a partisan shill.]

Greese
6th November 04, 03:41 AM
Yeah, but god, who doesn't want another ""What's the frequency, Kenneth" performance.
I don't think bush is dumb in the "I can't tie my shoes" more in the :"I am a religous nut way."

SCO
7th November 04, 01:59 PM
I maintain that Bush is not intelligent, by the way.
He has great people skills, but intellectually he`s a zero. I conclude this from the structure of his arguments and the decisions he has made.
Of course everyone`s free to come to a different conclusion for some reason or another.
From my point of view high intellectual capacity is very desirable for a man in the very center of political power, but it`s not only not everything, it`s not even a necessary prerequisite to being a successful politician. German ex-chancellor Helmut Kohl for example was an intellectual zero - as even some of his admirers and friends conceded -, but he was a political animal par excellence, self-assured, a very successful power broker, sly in his own way. Many people underestimated him and he exploited this to his advantage.

The biggest problem I see with Bush is not his lack of intellectuality, though.
It`s his record so far. I view his foreign policy as disastrous, with the exeption of the initial invasion of Afghanistan.
It`s his simplistic evangelical ideology. Which I think he is trying to impose on others and worse, which I see reflected in his black-and-white approach to politics. "You are either with us or against us".
It`s that he appears to be immune against advice and oblivious to facts.
He has a mission, he knows the way, that`s enough.

"He boasts that he listens to no outside advisers, and inside advisers who dare to express unwelcome views are met with anger or disdain. He lives and works within a self-created bubble of faith-based affirmation."
(New Yorker Magazine | Editorial, Monday 25 October 2004)

On a general note, aptitude/IQ tests and alike have their place and indicate something about intelligence, but they cannot comparatively measure intelligence, no standardized test can. In particular not possible in the high-intelligence bracket. (Which I certainly don`t see Bush to belong to, anyway.)

Bye-bye.