Not sure I've ever seen anything like this...

[Cuckoo]

Now, I expected that a lot of people would be really upset after the election, regardless of who won. And I also knew that a lot of people are fundamentally against many conservative and/or religious principles.

But I am absolutely amazed at the venom I've seen onling in the last couple of days, not just from this site but from several others as well. JeeberD made a comment in another thread about Democrats being so dramatic, and I thought it was funny, but as time goes on, I'm just floored by the reaction/hatred.

From a side of the aisle that I typically respect for their strong beliefs against intolerance and hatred, this may be getting out of hand. I'm seeing pronouncements of the end of the world, denouncements of anything religious, and some really horrible things being said about people that they don't agree with.

Let me say again that I expected disappointment. I expected anger, and I expected frustration. But am I the only one who thinks it's gone a little too far? Maybe it's just the immediate aftermath and this will calm down, but as my title suggests, I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like this.

[WSUCougar]

I think it's gone too far in every camp. It's nauseating.

[MikeVic]

Didn't that Titor guy predict a civil war in 2004 or 2006 or something?

[Ksyrup]

Cuckoo:

I agree. Although I saw it far before the election. With things seemingly going Kerry's way, and then the election result, it's just made the situation worse.

MikeVic:

I thought about that last week and meant to brush up on my Titor History. I think it was 2005 or 2006.

[gottimd]

I think the overrall reaction is basically due to the fact of the escalating unknown when it comes to future policies, acts, cabinets, etc. Fear breeds hatred and disgust. Yes, some if not all reactions are a bit much over the top, but I think people in general are voicing their concerns about a lot of heated issues from both sides of the campaigns that remain somewhat unanswered. Yes, we received "plans" and phases of actions to be taken on many issues, but some are considered to be false political promises. The fear of the unknown ahead of our country is what leads this mix of emotions. There are numerous decisions to be made that will effect our country for a long time, and with the population being split as it showed in the election, no matter what had happened in the election, there would've been this reaction from either side, IMHO.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

I think it's gone too far in every camp. It's nauseating.

Agreed. I voted for Bush, but I have no major feelings of love for the guy by any means. Anyone who checks my past posts would know that. But on Tuesday night, I figured that Kerry was going to win. Given the exit polls and the lack of margin on some Bush states, I figured it was part of a trend. And I admit that I was disappointed.

For that reason, I tried to not do a lot of discussing it right after (even though I did a little bit) because I knew that it was a sensitive time. I know that many Bush people have been rabid gloaters, and I think that's too bad too. But I expected that, in a certain regard. I would have expected the same had Kerry won from their side.

But I just never expected what I'm seeing.

[Ksyrup]

I don't remember which thread, but I posted a cut-and-paste from someone at another board where they guy believed one possible scenario by 2008 would have Bush invading Syria and Iran, and then suspending elections in 2008 and staying President indefinitely. Now, whatever you might think of Bush, (a) I can't believe someone actually believes he would do that, and (b) I can't believe someone actually believes the rest of his party, or his followers, would approve of that.

[dubb93]

Here's where I come from and this is my 1st dip into threads like these:

Yes we obviously have a hard time ahead of us, but I just don't trust the guy we have in office. His 1st war was justified, but the Iraq war wasn't. (no matter how much he claims otherwise.) My biggest fear is that he isn't done with these wars. There are other countries in the world that are/were FAR worse than Iraq and I can see him sending troops into these countries and further alienating us from the world. Like I said, based on his past I just can't trust this guy. Not to mention I fucking HATE Rumsfeld.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't remember which thread, but I posted a cut-and-paste from someone at another board where they guy believed one possible scenario by 2008 would have Bush invading Syria and Iran, and then suspending elections in 2008 and staying President indefinitely. Now, whatever you might think of Bush, (a) I can't believe someone actually believes he would do that, and (b) I can't believe someone actually believes the rest of his party, or his followers, would approve of that.

I heard a commentary on St. Louis radio that suggested Bush would not have yielded the White House regardless of the supposed outcome of the election.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

I heard a commentary on St. Louis radio that suggested Bush would not have yielded the White House regardless of the supposed outcome of the election.

And those people are idiots who serve a severe disservice to those of us who are truly frightened of this group of folks in charge.

[fantastic flying froggies]

From an outsider's point of view, I must say it is pretty disturbing to see such division and hate between people of the same country.

Remember guys, it is the United States of America.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

And those people are idiots who serve a severe disservice to those of us who are truly frightened of this group of folks in charge.

But here's the point. While the vast majority of you probably don't believe those kinds of extreme things about Bush, you're all using the same kinds of overly dramatic descriptions and comparisons about the Bush Administration that the true wackos are using. Bush is "evil," his presidency will bring us closer to the end of the world (if not THE end), etc. It's seems like just because a segment of the population does not believe that, and you seem desperate to get your point across - as if we fail to understand what you are saying - you fall into that trap and lump yourself in with those kinds of people. It's like yelling at someone who doesn't speak English in an attempt to get them to understand you. At some point, you do more harm than good and it becomes useless; you get tuned out.

Michael Moore is your (the Dems) spokesperson right now, in the eyes of a huge portion of this country. And you're doing nothing to dissuade that idea by feeding the Chicken Little scenarios with your doomsday descriptions of life after another 4 years of Bush. Particularly when we've already had 4 years of him - while you might not think things are going well, a lot of people are looking around and scratching their heads, searching for these awful, extreme things that are happening or about to happen.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

From an outsider's point of view, I must say it is pretty disturbing to see such division and hate between people of the same country.

Remember guys, it is the United States of America.

I think you're exactly right.

I should clarify in one sense. I can understand ill feelings towards Bush. He's a pretty polarizing figure. He doesn't make an effort to be conciliatory, and he doesn't admit mistakes. In addition, I can't argue with those who point out his arrogance.

My issue is with the treatment of Bush voters. From a side of the aisle that doesn't believe in stereotypes, there are some very horrible things being said about certain portions of the population, some on this board.

I'm not perfect, please don't think I've ever said that I am. I just try to recognize that a lot of people have very different opinions from my own and that they are just as passionate about them as I am. I just think there needs to be a little more respect for those opinions from everyone.

[Ksyrup]

The Hunter S. Thompson article on ESPN Page 2 is typical of the kind of stuff that motivates people who support the President - even if not overtly - to come to his defense. It's one thing to use the process to try to get rid of someone you don't personally agree with, or to see someone you do like/agree with elected, but with Bush, it goes way beyond that. And for most of "middle America," they're all scratching their heads, wondering what country you're looking at.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

But here's the point. While the vast majority of you probably don't believe those kinds of extreme things about Bush, you're all using the same kinds of overly dramatic descriptions and comparisons about the Bush Administration that the true wackos are using. Bush is "evil," his presidency will bring us closer to the end of the world (if not THE end), etc. It's seems like just because a segment of the population does not believe that, and you seem desperate to get your point across - as if we fail to understand what you are saying - you fall into that trap and lump yourself in with those kinds of people. It's like yelling at someone who doesn't speak English in an attempt to get them to understand you. At some point, you do more harm than good and it becomes useless; you get tuned out.

Michael Moore is your (the Dems) sppokeperson right now, in the yes of a huge portion of this country. And you're doing nothing to dissuade that idea by feeding the Chicken Little scenarios with your doomsday descriptions of life after another 4 years of Bush. Particularly when we've already had 4 years of him - while you might not think things are going well, a lot of people are looking around and scratching their heads, searching for these awful, extreme things that are happening or about to happen.

By suggesting that Micheal Moore is the spokesperson for the Democrats you're pretty much doing the exact thing you're accusing us of.
I believe Bush is not very smart and not very honest, and that's not because of what I see from MM but from what I see of GW.

[QuikSand]

I had a long conversation with an ardent Bush-hater last night over dinner, and got a pretty good earful of this, too.

My first thought goes back to an underlying part of Cuckoo's thread-starter:

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

From a side of the aisle that I typically respect for their strong beliefs against intolerance and hatred, this may be getting out of hand.

I think there's a common logical flaw here.

Democrats/liberals are indeed fairly seen as advocating tolerance, but it's of a specific kind. The enlightened liberal believes it's wrong for people to be judged on matters that are objectively not relevant -- the color of their skin, their physical disabilities, their sexual preference, and the like. Who they are. Whle I don't think that there are all that many people who disagree with this in benevolent general concept, it's a more basic part of the left's idology than the right's, by any reasonable account, I think.

That's not to say that advocating tolerance means that you should accept and respect the actions and opinions of other people. Sometimes, people like to try to turn this into a game of "gotcha" -- suggesting that the liberals are obliged to be tolerant of others who have intolerant views. I think this is a false paradox -- the political principle at hand is to avoid faulting people for who they are... not for the things they do. If you are born into a culture and faith different from mine, I should treat you and your principles with respect. If you decide that you hate all white people, for whatever reason, that decision does not deserve my respect or tolerance.


Anyway -- I think there are quite a lot of Bush-haters out there who are just awestruck that so many people actually voted for the President. Polls and other data notwithstanding, they just cannot believe that "people like them" actually voted for Bush. I'm hearing an awful lot of Bush opponents use pejorative terms for Bush supporters -- a new breed of terms that for the hardcore, really. It seems to go like this: we knew all along that there were plenty of hard-core conservatives and Christian-right-wingers out there, so of course they will al go and vote for Bush. But the fact that so many soccer moms and lunchpail Joes did too is what staggers them -- they are amazed that these "swing voters" actually voted for the President who got them into this war, who presided over a poor economy, and (the list of Bush greivances goes on and on).

These are people who watched the debates and said to themselves -- "Well, this ought to settle it. It's perfectly clear that Bush is an idiot, and that Kerry isn't a monster, so there shouldn't be any contest." And they were wrong.


Back to intolerance. I think what the Dems are so outraged by is tha fact that a lot of the (so-called) middle-of-the-road voters actually agree with Bush on some fo the things that the Dems despise the most. The classic example is gay rights -- or more specifically Constitutional bans on gay marriages. They inspired turnout, and they passed in every single state where they were offered. The Dems are shocked -- they see this not as simply losing out on an issue (which happens all the time) but as a fundamental departure -- actually introducing discrimination right into these "sacred" governmental documents. Stand back a bit, try to see it from that perspective, and I think you might be able to understand the degree of alarm at hand. When the President (and now a formidable majority in the entire federal government) is talking about pushing creationism back into the classroom, about blurring the walls between church and state, and about curtailing science policy for faith-driven reasons -- it's more than just losing a vote on some tax bill. Some people see it as a much, much larger issue -- and they are appalled at what seems to be happening.

Many of them attribute the result of this election to stupidity. It's a common liberal trait -- if "the people" didn't see that my position was right, then "the people" were either ignorant or misled. Surely, if we had better articulated our elightened position, "the people" would have supported us. It then becomes a campaign to complain about things like misleading political rhetoric and advertising... rather than considering the other possible explnations (like the possibility that the majority of people really don't agree with them).


I'm really torn on this whole thing, personally. Those of you who recall back when I used to participate in the political discussions here (before it became physically painful to do so) might know that I hold a number of beliefs that are traditionally "liberal" -- and that I have grave disagreements with many of this Administration's policies. But I'm working hard right now to try to keep a fair perspective on this, and not to fall into the partisan self-protecting criticisms that seem to be taking over the vanquished left.

[gottimd]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I just try to recognize that a lot of people have very different opinions from my own and that they are just as passionate about them as I am. I just think there needs to be a little more respect for those opinions from everyone.

I agree, and I have heard this all over biased news sites and reports. I am a democrat, but I do understand everyone is not the same in values, etc and I respect that. I hear about the ignorant voters and stupid people and the how could you scenario's, which I don't agree with. People went out in record numbers and voted for who they thought would be best to lead this country, and I respect that, although the outcome wasn't my choice, but America has spoken. I just hope that those people who are not in the moral majority, whether be Dem or GOP, are not alienated because they won't capture the majority of the vote in the next election. The only thing I was semi upset about is the low turn out for the younger generation. Not that I was expecting all of them to vote democrat, but just to get out there and vote, whether it would be Dem or GOP, and let your voice be heard, use the priviledge that we have as citizens to elect who you think is the best candidate for the job, and to not sit around for the next four years and complain about any injustices that have happened.

I admit, I fear for the future and what it holds, and can only hope that everything will turn around, and the 50-50 split (sorry 51-48), will come to some level of agreement where we as a country can move on. We will never get anywhere if we continue to take quick jabs at the other half or criticize too much. Each side should try and understand the other and come up with solutions that benefit both. I know it is easier written or said then done, but that is the only way we can possible "unite".

[Ksyrup]

I'm saying that people see him out there, hear what he's saying, know his past, and equate him with the party. I'm not saying I believe him to be, I'm saying that's what a portion of this country believes - that the Dems are hell-bent on destroying Bush personally, and will do anything in order to achieve that goal.

[CraigSca]

As an aside, on the Philadelphia TV-stations last night, they showed an impromptu protest of people walking down some streets yelling anti-Bush, pro-peace slogans. The reporter then said that when the cameraman tried to tape them for the broadcast last night, they asked not to be taped and then attacked the cameraman when he refused to comply.

I hereby roll my eyes.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Many of them attribute the result of this election to stupidity. It's a common liberal trait -- if "the people" didn't see that my position was right, then "the people" were either ignorant or misled. Surely, if we had better articulated our elightened position, "the people" would have supported us. It then becomes a campaign to complain about things like misleading political rhetoric and advertising... rather than considering the other possible explnations (like the possibility that the majority of people really don't agree with them).

This is an intriguing point. I think a decent case can be made, however, that the Republicans/conservatives do a better job of catering to simpler values. By that I mean that you can drum up more support among voters who do not study the issues quite as deeply by plugging "traditional" family values, propping your statements with religious terminology, and largely maintaining the status quo.

I don't consider myself a liberal or conservative, by the way. More of an issue-driven moderate.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

This is an intriguing point. I think a decent case can be made, however, that the Republicans/conservatives do a better job of catering to simpler values. By that I mean that you can drum up more support among voters who do not study the issues quite as deeply by plugging "traditional" family values, propping your statements with religious terminology, and largely maintaining the status quo.

I don't consider myself a liberal or conservative, by the way. More of an issue-driven moderate.

That's an intriguing point as well, WSU. I'm not so sure that Conservatives aren't issue-driven, I think it's more of a - "if the candidate's views are value-driven, then he/she is more likely to 'do the right thing' no matter what the issue is."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

But I am absolutely amazed at the venom I've seen onling in the last couple of days, not just from this site but from several others as well.

To be honest, I'm kinda amazed that you're amazed (or that anyone is).

As I've said before, and I'll say again -- the two sides of the political aisle don't like each other very much. Hell, a lot of the time we can't fucking stand each other.

And, as I've said many times before -- it isn't our politics that divide us, it's our values, our beliefs, the things that play strong roles in determining who we are. The political rancor is just a symptom of all of that. It's pushed to the forefront because it's something that, like it or not, the two sides have to share because of our political system. It's an area where we have to interact with our opposites.

Like tends to attract like, birds of a feather flock together, etc., and so on.
I suspect a lot of people probably don't have the dramatic skew toward similar politics among the people they interact with, I'd say that most people (not just FOFC'ers, but people in general) tend to do most of their voluntary social interaction with people who share their general politic slant. The same values & beliefs that influence my politics also influence my choices in entertainment for example. So, when I spend a weekend at a PBR event or a NASCAR race, it's not all that surprising that I'm probably spending time with a crowd that shares 75%+ of my political views too. Same thing with somebody who ... hell, if a self-described liberal would like to pick something they spend time doing with a crowd, I'll let them fill-in-the-blank ... but I bet they'll be able to find a similar comparison without much trouble.

We hang out with people we like; We avoid hanging out with people we
don't like -- I think those two things are pretty much givens. And conversely, it isn't unusual for their to be a good bit of hostility (whether expressed or not) between people who don't like each other.

So why "venom" between political polar opposites is anywhere near "amazing" is, well ... amazing to me.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I had a long conversation with an ardent Bush-hater last night over dinner, and got a pretty good earful of this, too.

My first thought goes back to an underlying part of Cuckoo's thread-starter:



I think there's a common logical flaw here.

Democrats/liberals are indeed fairly seen as advocating tolerance, but it's of a specific kind. The enlightened liberal believes it's wrong for people to be judged on matters that are objectively not relevant -- the color of their skin, their physical disabilities, their sexual preference, and the like. Who they are. Whle I don't think that there are all that many people who disagree with this in benevolent general concept, it's a more basic part of the left's idology than the right's, by any reasonable account, I think.

That's not to say that advocating tolerance means that you should accept and respect the actions and opinions of other people. Sometimes, people like to try to turn this into a game of "gotcha" -- suggesting that the liberals are obliged to be tolerant of others who have intolerant views. I think this is a false paradox -- the political principle at hand is to avoid faulting people for who they are... not for the things they do. If you are born into a culture and faith different from mine, I should treat you and your principles with respect. If you decide that you hate all white people, for whatever reason, that decision does not deserve my respect or tolerance.


Anyway -- I think there are quite a lot of Bush-haters out there who are just awestruck that so many people actually voted for the President. Polls and other data notwithstanding, they just cannot believe that "people like them" actually voted for Bush. I'm hearing an awful lot of Bush opponents use pejorative terms for Bush supporters -- a new breed of terms that for the hardcore, really. It seems to go like this: we knew all along that there were plenty of hard-core conservatives and Christian-right-wingers out there, so of course they will al go and vote for Bush. But the fact that so many soccer moms and lunchpail Joes did too is what staggers them -- they are amazed that these "swing voters" actually voted for the President who got them into this war, who presided over a poor economy, and (the list of Bush greivances goes on and on).

These are people who watched the debates and said to themselves -- "Well, this ought to settle it. It's perfectly clear that Bush is an idiot, and that Kerry isn't a monster, so there shouldn't be any contest." And they were wrong.


Back to intolerance. I think what the Dems are so outraged by is tha fact that a lot of the (so-called) middle-of-the-road voters actually agree with Bush on some fo the things that the Dems despise the most. The classic example is gay rights -- or more specifically Constitutional bans on gay marriages. They inspired turnout, and they passed in every single state where they were offered. The Dems are shocked -- they see this not as simply losing out on an issue (which happens all the time) but as a fundamental departure -- actually introducing discrimination right into these "sacred" governmental documents. Stand back a bit, try to see it from that perspective, and I think you might be able to understand the degree of alarm at hand. When the President (and now a formidable majority in the entire federal government) is talking about pushing creationism back into the classroom, about blurring the walls between church and state, and about curtailing science policy for faith-driven reasons -- it's more than just losing a vote on some tax bill. Some people see it as a much, much larger issue -- and they are appalled at what seems to be happening.

Many of them attribute the result of this election to stupidity. It's a common liberal trait -- if "the people" didn't see that my position was right, then "the people" were either ignorant or misled. Surely, if we had better articulated our elightened position, "the people" would have supported us. It then becomes a campaign to complain about things like misleading political rhetoric and advertising... rather than considering the other possible explnations (like the possibility that the majority of people really don't agree with them).


I'm really torn on this whole thing, personally. Those of you who recall back when I used to participate in the political discussions here (before it became physically painful to do so) might know that I hold a number of beliefs that are traditionally "liberal" -- and that I have grave disagreements with many of this Administration's policies. But I'm working hard right now to try to keep a fair perspective on this, and not to fall into the partisan self-protecting criticisms that seem to be taking over the vanquished left.

These are some interesting points, but I'm not sure I agree with you. Tolerance, at least as how I perceive it, is not just meant for the unalterable components of people (i.e. race, etc.) but is also used quite frequently from the more progressive portions of the population to represent opinions/values as well. For example, alternative lifestyles should be tolerated, religions out of the more mainstream protestant should be tolerated, and other issues that one would call in the category of "actions and opinions." This is something heard frequently from some who may be described as more liberal. And it is one of the things I truly respect.

In the past two days, however, this has not been the case. People who made decisions based on morality are being degraded as are a number of other reasons for voting for Bush. There has been absolutely no tolerance, and I think that's sad.

Like I've said before, I completely understand many of the objections to George W. Bush. But to simply assume that stupidity or ignorance is what made people vote for him is ridiculous and foolish, in my opinion.

The fact is that there is a very diverse population in the United States right now, and there isn't anything close to a consensus on either side. I've just been continually surprised by how venomous the attacks have become on population groups who have differing opinions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

Remember guys, it is the United States of America.

Only on increasingly rare occasions. And, at the age of 37, I don't really recall much time that this hasn't been the case.

As a nation we are, IMO, very much like a family -- we might come to the aid
of a relative if their being attacked from outside the family regardless of the circumstances, but from within ... well, let's just say I probably have nearly as many relatives that I can't stand as I like.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We hang out with people we like; We avoid hanging out with people we
don't like -- I think those two things are pretty much givens. And conversely, it isn't unusual for their to be a good bit of hostility (whether expressed or not) between people who don't like each other.

Perhaps you're right, but as a person who considers himself to be conservative and is smack in the middle of academia, I frequently associate with people who have very different political opinions than myself. The majority of the time I don't think we're really that different; we simply have different priorities. While I may value economics, another may value the environment. When it's all said and done, my experience has been that we all basically agree on what is "right." We simply have a disagreement over the way to get there, or what should be done first.

On the internet, people are thrust into situations where they associate with others who have strikingly different political opinions. I have argued repeatedly with folks like NoMyths, John Galt, Chubby, and others over the course of this board, but I respect them for their opinions. Where my respect ends is when their respect for differing opinions ends. At the end of the day, we should be able to say, "I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion."

If you go out and read some of the posts on this board and the OOTP board and others, however, one would think that respect has completely disappeared.

[Kevin]

My outsiders view is that politics has become way too much about personalities and not enough about policy. The same holds true here in Canada. There is little reasonable discourse during campaigns. I think either candidate would have been much more credible by also pointing out what issues that they are in agreement on. The campaign managers push them instead to demonize each other and in the end demoralize the country. I wish politicians would give us a reason to vote for them instead of a hundred reasons to not vote for someone else.

As in many other aspects of life, the media only make it worse as all they want is the sensational ten second sound bite. Far too much credit is given to people like Michael Moorer. Yes, he is a brilliant satirist, but not much more than that. Unfortunately many people don't realize it. It's good that he makes people think. It's awful that people tend to blindly believe everything he says. He's become so much a part of the political landscape that he's now going to become the subject of the satire.

My rant is starting to sound like a political speech: all criticism and no solutions. I wish I had one. I wish anyone had one.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Perhaps you're right, but as a person who considers himself to be conservative and is smack in the middle of academia, I frequently associate with people who have very different political opinions than myself. The majority of the time I don't think we're really that different; we simply have different priorities. While I may value economics, another may value the environment. When it's all said and done, my experience has been that we all basically agree on what is "right." We simply have a disagreement over the way to get there, or what should be done first.

Okay -- but that exchange starts with a certain basis. All the people around you in an academic setting are certainly educated and presumably pretty intellectualy astute. You can have some very spirited left/right debates among such people, and easily come away with your preferred conclusion: I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.

Matters of "moral values" (or whatever the phrasing was that turned out to be the supposed #1 issue in this election) rarely allow that sort of conclusion. It's awfully hard to "basically agree on what is right" when one person believes that public policy should be dictated by the words of the Bible, and the other person thinks that the Bible should have no place whatsoever in the public institutions. These might be intractable positions -- and while it's at least conceivable for one person to "respect the other person's view" there, they most certainly are not separated by just incremental matters of prioritization -- they are diametrically opposed about things as fundamental as the appropriate role of government, period.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Okay -- but that exchange starts with a certain basis. All the people around you in an academic setting are certainly educated and presumably pretty intellectualy astute. You can have some very spirited left/right debates among such people, and easily come away with your preferred conclusion: I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.

Matters of "moral values" (or whatever the phrasing was that turned out to be the supposed #1 issue in this election) rarely allow that sort of conclusion. It's awfully hard to "basically agree on what is right" when one person believes that public policy should be dictated by the words of the Bible, and the other person thinks that the Bible should have no place whatsoever in the public institutions. These might be intractable positions -- and while it's at least conceivable for one person to "respect the other person's view" there, they most certainly are not separated by just incremental matters of prioritization -- they are diametrically opposed about things as fundamental as the appropriate role of government, period.

Fair enough, but how you get from that opposition to downright hatred is a leap I simply cannot see any justification for. I respect a variety of religious beliefs as well as those who have no religious beliefs, but I wouldn't ever reach a point of frustration that I would degrade those beliefs, regardless of how vehemently I disagreed with them.

It's an easy hypothesis to simply say that intelligent people can disagree with some amount of mutual respect, but that's the problem I'm seeing. That's precisely why I started this thread. I'm seeing the venom from intelligent people, people whose opinions in many areas I've valued. That's what is blowing my mind, and frankly, saddening me.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

To be honest, I'm kinda amazed that you're amazed (or that anyone is).

As I've said before, and I'll say again -- the two sides of the political aisle don't like each other very much. Hell, a lot of the time we can't fucking stand each other.

And, as I've said many times before -- it isn't our politics that divide us, it's our values, our beliefs, the things that play strong roles in determining who we are. The political rancor is just a symptom of all of that. It's pushed to the forefront because it's something that, like it or not, the two sides have to share because of our political system. It's an area where we have to interact with our opposites.

Like tends to attract like, birds of a feather flock together, etc., and so on.
I suspect a lot of people probably don't have the dramatic skew toward similar politics among the people they interact with, I'd say that most people (not just FOFC'ers, but people in general) tend to do most of their voluntary social interaction with people who share their general politic slant. The same values & beliefs that influence my politics also influence my choices in entertainment for example. So, when I spend a weekend at a PBR event or a NASCAR race, it's not all that surprising that I'm probably spending time with a crowd that shares 75%+ of my political views too. Same thing with somebody who ... hell, if a self-described liberal would like to pick something they spend time doing with a crowd, I'll let them fill-in-the-blank ... but I bet they'll be able to find a similar comparison without much trouble.

We hang out with people we like; We avoid hanging out with people we
don't like -- I think those two things are pretty much givens. And conversely, it isn't unusual for their to be a good bit of hostility (whether expressed or not) between people who don't like each other.

So why "venom" between political polar opposites is anywhere near "amazing" is, well ... amazing to me.

I think JIMG is totally right here for the most part. I have a few friends who are conservative. I am still good friends with all of them, but we don't discuss politics. Ever. I really only tend to talk politics with friends of mine who share the same views. Not because I need to hear my views parroted back to me, but arguing politics with friends is rarely a good way to spend your time. Case in point, my father. He voted for Bush. Hell, he has a signed picture of the bastard in our house, he also got some sort of pin for being a "wrangler" or something like that (some fundraising thing). I don't see my dad often (as he lives in Mich.), but we have a simple rule: we don't talk about politics. Ever. Life's too short to argue with your dad or good friends about that kind of stuff.

As for you f*ckers, this place is all about wasting time!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Before I say another word, please let me make something clear -- I'm not trying to give you a hard time about your thread, I'm just trying to bridge the gap between your amazement & my position, which could probably be described as "I border on amazed when there isn't venom".

You might have been wholly comfortable with that without any qualifying statement from me, but I feel a little better having said it outright.

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Perhaps you're right, but as a person who considers himself to be conservative and is smack in the middle of academia, I frequently associate with people who have very different political opinions than myself.

I'll simply ask you to consider how much of that "association" is wholly by choice and how much is "practical realities"; i.e. dinner parties where you go because you "should", social functions that are career-oriented, etc. Eliminate anything that isn't purely "free will" association.

If your numbers don't change, then I'll simply say that I believe you're in the minority in this country.

If you go out and read some of the posts on this board and the OOTP board and others, however, one would think that respect has completely disappeared.

I'll go so far as to suggest that it hasn't disappeared nearly so much as it didn't really exist in the first place. What, IMO, has diminished significantly is the amount of effort expended on trying to create an illusion of respect.
We simply went behind their backs & said "what an idiot" or "can you believe this shit" or whatever. We smiled to their faces while they spoke, all the while writing "screw you" on the roof of our mouths with our tongues.

Also, there's another distinction which I think has to be made here on this same line -- the difference between respecting "your right to have an opinion" and "your opinion".

Even me, probably safe to call one of the more "reactionary" members of the board, will lean strongly toward acknowledging the former. The latter however ... well, at some point you simply can't "tolerate the intolerable" any longer. And the combination of those two things leads to my general statement of "you're free to hold any opinion you choose ... as long as you understand that acting on those opinions may carry consequences".

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Before I say another word, please let me make something clear -- I'm not trying to give you a hard time about your thread, I'm just trying to bridge the gap between your amazement & my position, which could probably be described as "I border on amazed when there isn't venom".

You might have been wholly comfortable with that without any qualifying statement from me, but I feel a little better having said it outright.

Don't worry, I wasn't bothered by it at all. I recognize that some people aren't surprised by it at all.

In fact, you may be completely right. Maybe I'm not near as tolerant of other opinions as I think I am but that I simply put on a respectful face. To be honest, I really don't know. I do know that I express my exasperation to those who share my views, but I usually try to make a conscious effort to not belittle those I disagree with (as long as their opinions are supported and well thought out, that's an important distinction, I think).

I still think that the last couple of days have shown a great shift in that "respectful" face, even if it was just a facade.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll simply ask you to consider how much of that "association" is wholly by choice and how much is "practical realities"; i.e. dinner parties where you go because you "should", social functions that are career-oriented, etc. Eliminate anything that isn't purely "free will" association.

If your numbers don't change, then I'll simply say that I believe you're in the minority in this country.

I think you're right to an extent. I do have a number of friends whom I associate with out of choice that have very different political views than I do. I use the same tactic HB mentioned. We usually don't talk about it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Okay -- but that exchange starts with a certain basis. All the people around you in an academic setting are certainly educated and presumably pretty intellectualy astute. You can have some very spirited left/right debates among such people, and easily come away with your preferred conclusion: I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.

Matters of "moral values" (or whatever the phrasing was that turned out to be the supposed #1 issue in this election) rarely allow that sort of conclusion. It's awfully hard to "basically agree on what is right" when one person believes that public policy should be dictated by the words of the Bible, and the other person thinks that the Bible should have no place whatsoever in the public institutions. These might be intractable positions -- and while it's at least conceivable for one person to "respect the other person's view" there, they most certainly are not separated by just incremental matters of prioritization -- they are diametrically opposed about things as fundamental as the appropriate role of government, period.

Here's the problem as I see it, and maybe my bias is coming through here, but this is how I see it. I have numerous hard-left friends and similar hard-right friends. I perceive a lot more tolerance for someone that is pro-affirmative action or pro gay marriage or pro-choice from the right than I do for someone that is anti-AA, against gay marriage or pro-life from the left. Now, I am trying to remove the extreme left/right here, but I think most republicans understand there are people that don't oppose gay marriage and are pro-choice (just look at Arnold and Rudy as main figures in the republican party). They may disagree entirely with their positions, but they have accepted the fact that intelligent people may hold those beliefs.

Yet, I think most of the left has a difficult time understanding how someone could be pro-life, against gay marriage and against affirmative action. I think much of the left has a real hard time believing that intellegent and well-educated people would believe the above.

I also think the fact that media tends to be pro-choice, pro-AA and pro-gay marriage has made many republicans become more accepting of people with those views than the left accepting the opposite. I think the fact that such a wide spectrum of personalities are shown in the media with pro-choice or pro-AA views makes it harder for the right to simply think that everyone that thinks that way is "stupid". Yet you rarely see personalities in the mainstream media that are staunchly pro-life or anti-AA, thereby making it easier for the left to assume that people thinking that way are "stupid" or "out of the mainstream".

[EagleFan]

It seems to be a very simple thing to me. These Kerry supporters have been whipped into a frenzy by all of the Michael Moore type crap that they can no longer think logically. Once the issue is breached, hatred is all that spills out.

I don't like Kerry and what he stands for. Mostly because he stands for nothing, yet he stands for everythign at the same time. HE is like a usesd car salesman who will say what he thinks the people standing in front of him want to hear.

Bush at least seems to stick with his beliefe (if they are right or wrong). A true leader is closer to Bush than Kerry. A leader needs to be 100% secure with his beliefs and not be wishy-washy.

Sorry, I really didn't want to get into my reasoning here for who I like. Back to my original train of thought.

My office was filled whith who I thought were all Kerry suporters. This is because every single time Bush was mentioned, or in the paper, or on TV, there was nothuin but vile hatred spilling out from most of them (ie: one idiot who doesn;t even have enough respect for the office of the President to continually call him an asshole, or to quote his political beliefs "I don;t like him because he is an asshole." Deep political foundation there.).

Ths made me believe that the majority of those in the office were against Bush. There was only one person who was a right wing nut job who would speak out (not proud that I'm on the same side as that guy).

Afterthe election, I came to find out that there were quite a few in the office who suported Bush. The difference is that they kept their mouth shut the entire time before he election and generally after. The reason was that they knew if they even mentioned his name, the hate machine would get kicked into gear by the Kerry supporters.

It was a royal pain in the ass being in that office for the past months. Once word got out that I was a Bush supporter I was constantly being hounded by the Kerry group. Suddenly I was treated like I was some sort of idiot because I didn't agree with them. I generally kept my mouth shut, until a few pushed me a little too far which led to some rather strong debates (which I feel that I won most as the loudest ones (ie, the only ones that would eventually push me too far to where I would finally respond) were always the ones who seemed to have no real idea why they supported Kerry).

Many of these people now speak like the world is ending. What the hell is wrong with these people? Somewhere along the line they have lost all grip on reality. I disliked Clinton but didn't get all dramatic after his election wins. I also respected the office of the President and would not ever think of callnig him an asshole and disrespecting him in such a personal manner as many of these Kerry supporters have done and are doing.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

I disliked Clinton but didn't get all dramatic after his election wins. I also respected the office of the President and would not ever think of callnig him an asshole and disrespecting him in such a personal manner as many of these Kerry supporters have done and are doing.

Not attacking you personally, EagleFan, but you must recall the vicious personal attacks that were made on Clinton throughout his presidency. The Republicans made a living out of it for four years.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

Here's the problem as I see it, and maybe my bias is coming through here, but this is how I see it. I have numerous hard-left friends and similar hard-right friends. I perceive a lot more tolerance for someone that is pro-affirmative action or pro gay marriage or pro-choice from the right than I do for someone that is anti-AA, against gay marriage or pro-life from the right. Now, I am trying to remove the extreme left/right here, but I think most republicans understand people that don't oppose gay marriage and are pro-choice (just look at Arnold and Rudy as main figures in the republican party).

Yet, I think most of the left has a hard time understanding how someone could be pro-life, against gay marriage and against affirmative action.

I also think the fact that media tends to be pro-choice, pro-AA and pro-gay marriage has made many republicans become more accepting of people with those views than the left accepting the opposite.

I think everyone has the right to their personal beliefs, even when I find those beliefs repugnant. So you can be anti-gay marriage or anti-choice. That's why we're all different - and that's ok.

But quite often, I'm seeing those who are against those issues trying to impose their belief systems on the rest of the country. It's ok to be anti-gay marriage. It may be something that isn't within your belief system or acceptable by your religion. But why is it permissable - even encouraged - to try to actively deny those who believe differently their ability to execute those actions?

Why is it necessary to actively go out of the way to deny the ability for gays to join in a union that would be recognized by the State? Why is it necessary to try to impose organized prayer in schools? Why can't someone see that my family may not have the same abortion opinion as yours?

So, no, I often can't accept the beliefs of the Radical Right - because they often want to directly impose those beliefs on everyone else. That's what I find repugnant about the Republican Party today. It really is the party of Big Government, Mob Rule and exclusion.

[EagleFan]

I know there were attacks to get him out of office due to Monica-gate and other scandals but every politcal sicussion that I was ever involved in about him always came down to political reasons for not liking him, and this was by others as well as myself. Not once did it end up in some frenzy against him calling him an asshole, stupid, a moron, etc...

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Bush at least seems to stick with his beliefe (if they are right or wrong). A true leader is closer to Bush than Kerry. A leader needs to be 100% secure with his beliefs and not be wishy-washy.

I just don't see the logic in being strong and wrong, rather than changing your views when new information is available. Who wants a leader that is wrong all the time and refuses to do anything about it?

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Bomber

I just don't see the logic in being strong and wrong, rather than changing your views when new information is available. Who wants a leader that is wrong all the time and refuses to do anything about it?

Yeah, I would much rather have a leader who caves to change his beliefs depending on who is is talking to that day just to try to gain acceptance.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

On the internet, people are thrust into situations where they associate with others who have strikingly different political opinions. I have argued repeatedly with folks like NoMyths, John Galt, Chubby, and others over the course of this board, but I respect them for their opinions. Where my respect ends is when their respect for differing opinions ends. At the end of the day, we should be able to say, "I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion."

If you go out and read some of the posts on this board and the OOTP board and others, however, one would think that respect has completely disappeared.

I think this is a "vocal minority" thing... there are a large number of political posters capable of having a political discussion while remaining "friends" with everyone on this board. I love reading the political threads until the vocal minority steps in and starts slinging shit around.

The respect amongst the majority of us are still there. But the vocal few are being *very* vocal now and causing some major problems.

I know that I can say myself that I respect most of the board's conservative posters, even though I certainly fall on the left side of the moderate label(not far over IMO but that's a matter of opinion too). The people I "despise" are the ones who step in and throw a thread off topic with their own agendas or with name calling or with wild-ass responses, taking a slight disagreement on some sort of ideal and turning it into a hate filled personal attack.


Something else i wonder... even amongst that vocal minority, how many of us here have formed opinions so strong that we'd refuse to discuss sports with them? There are strong conservatives on the board - JonInMiddleGA comes to mind, someone who I would disagree with politically in a most extreme(but still civil) way, but I read his dynasties and posts on other topics with great interest, his T-Ball dynasty was one of my favorite threads on this board ever. But he's not on my list of shit-slingers in these political threads, just someone I consider to be the furthest away from my own views of anyone I read here.

There are two people off the top of my head who have made such an impression on me in political threads that I would refuse to answer their posts even if they responded in one of my dynasties because I have such a distaste for them... not for their political opinions, but for their posting style and tone and lack of respect they show for anyone at all. Given the number of people who get involved in flamewars here, having that list at only 2 seems small to me, and I consider myself extremely tolerant. Have others felt this strongly about posters in political threads that it carries over to the entire board? I wonder how widespread this is.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally Posted by Bomber

I just don't see the logic in being strong and wrong, rather than changing your views when new information is available. Who wants a leader that is wrong all the time and refuses to do anything about it?

I think QS hit the hammer on the nail and here is a perfect example of it. This liberal refuses to change his mind on anything and if you do not see it his way you are WRONG.

Jim and other have mentioned it before. If the democratic party wants to stand a chance in the few years they are going to have to shy away from this hard left stance and the general cockiness they have.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Bomber

I just don't see the logic in being strong and wrong, rather than changing your views when new information is available. Who wants a leader that is wrong all the time and refuses to do anything about it?

Whether and/or to what extent he was "wrong" is primarily where the differences lie, right? So if someone doesn't accept the initial premise, then your point is largely lost on them, don't you think?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Why is it necessary to actively go out of the way to deny the ability for gays to join in a union that would be recognized by the State?

I think unions are different than marriage. I would be willing to state that a vast majority of the republican party has no problem with legalized civil unions for gays (and polls have shown this).

They do, however, have a problem with redefining the mostly relgious term of marriage and essentially having the government endorsing the idea that a marriage can be between two people of the same sex.

Why is it necessary to try to impose organized prayer in schools?

I think many on the right would prefer to have their kids involved with some limited form of religion while they go to school. Since religion is a big part of their life and much of their kids life is spent in school, it certainly makes some sense. I think most republicans feel that each school district should be allowed to make that call. In other words, if a district in Mississippi wants to have school prayer, while on in New York does not. I don't think republicans have a problem with each district having different guidelines here. I would guess, though, that the left would have a problem with Mississippi allowing some form of school prayer in their school even if the community wanted it.

Why can't someone see that my family may not have the same abortion opinion as yours?

I don't know of that many republicans that want to completely outlaw abortion throughout the US with no way for individual communities to have different guidelines here. Yet, many do not feel the government should be sanctioning abortion through funds and/or the public school system.

I think the main difference here is that republicans have no problem if some community in Massachusates wants to have an abortion or not have school prayer or support civil unions for gays. They just want the ability to not have their kids indoctrinated by pro-abortion propoganda in school, perhaps be able to pray in their local district and not be forced to have a religious term they hold dear (marriage) be redefined to include people of the same sex.

Whereas, I think the left doesn't want anyone anywhere to be able to pray in school or not sanction gay marriage or not use public funds to support abortion.

That, IMO, is the difference. I don't think the republican party wants to impose their beliefs on everyone else, they simply want to be able to practice their beliefs in their local communities without being hasseled by the left.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Whether and/or to what extent he was "wrong" is primarily where the differences lie, right? So if someone doesn't accept the initial premise, then your point is largely lost on them, don't you think?

that's deep

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think unions are different than marriage. I would be willing to state that a vast majority of the republican party has no problem with legalized civil unions for gays (and polls have shown this).

They do, however, have a problem with redefining the mostly relgious term of marriage and essentially having the government endorsing the idea that a marriage can be between two people of the same sex.

I agree, and over the weekend, Bush actually said as much. However, it is interesting that in Ohio, they already had a ban on gay marriage and just strengthened that to include "civil unions" as well, and those who came out to vote on that issue may have won the election for Bush.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

that's deep

Go find me some more Belding pics, please.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Go find me some more Belding pics, please.

How about some happy Kerry supporters:



They still look quite pleased.

[Ksyrup]

"King of Fools" fits quite well.

I guess if you include Al's hair, they are, indeed, Shiny Happy People.

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think unions are different than marriage. I would be willing to state that a vast majority of the republican party has no problem with legalized civil unions for gays (and polls have shown this).

I'd be interested to see if that were true (not in polls, but in an actual vote), but somehow I doubt it. Most people who are against gay marriage are simply against being gay.

[CraigSca]

Wasn't Kerry against gay marriage?

[Ksyrup]

Yes, he was, but his reasoning was more enlightened.