I Got 99 Problems And George Bush Is One

In a perfect world, charismatic while campaigning and competent when elected.

So, sort of a Bill Clinton approach.

Muahahah. I know that will set off a few rabid dogs.

Cycloptichorn

LOL Cycloptichorn....it would be fascinating...and a bit scary to be inside your head.

When i replied to McG, i pointed to the sum of your posts. Whether it were your intent or not, you imply that liberals have elitist views and "don't get it," or only "get it" on an intellectual level.

I have several points about this, which you seem unwilling to recognize. Not all of the American "heartland" think as you describe them as thinking. Not all liberals live on the coasts and fail to "get it" about what you've described as "regular" people. I won't even go into the sort of reverse elitism which is involved in percieving a dichotomous descripition of the populations involving "regular" people, and those liberals who don't get it. Not all elitists are liberals, a great many are conservative. Not all Democrats are liberals, a great many are conservative. Not all Americans in the "heartland" reliably vote Republican, not all Americans living on the coasts reliably vote Democratic.

Slinging around broad generalizations which do not take into account the vast divergences of opinion expressed in the media and the voting booth is partisan drivel. It does not offend me, and in fact i find it rather amusing, although pathetic. I am curious to know when the "heartland" elected you spokesman--i don't even remember the voting.

Not all of the American "heartland" think as you describe them as thinking. Not all liberals live on the coasts and fail to "get it" about what you've described as "regular" people. I won't even go into the sort of reverse elitism which is involved in percieving a dichotomous descripition of the populations involving "regular" people, and those liberals who don't get it. Not all elitists are liberals, a great many are conservative. Not all Democrats are liberals, a great many are conservative. Not all Americans in the "heartland" reliably vote Republican, not all Americans living on the coasts reliably vote Democratic.

I never once used the word "all", neither do I think most who read what I posted thought it was implied.

I've already noted that if you want to see my thoughts or opinions as pathetic partisan drivel then that is your prerogative.

And i've noted that without the use of qualifiers, your statements are inferentially global. You wrote earlier that you wished to improve your writing. If that is truly the case, exercise some ordinary care, and give some thought to how you intend to write will appear to others.

Be calm. This has been a good thread so far.

Cycloptichorn

I'm calm. I came back to note that i likely would have disputed the specious "heartland" claims and "regular" people claims anyway. Given that so many states full of regular people are now considered "battleground" states, any suggestion that a majority, even a slim one, of "regular" people vote a certain way is self-evidently specious. This is, however, exactly how Carl Rove would like people to view the nation. It is in the interest of many political operatives to maintain a divisive attitude among the electorate. It is useful for people to see themselves as "regular" people, as though those who disagree with them politically are not "regular" people, as it helps to validate political self-righteousness. Without qualifying one's statements, without specificity, such notions are simply more egregious violations of logical discourse. Even with carefully qualified statements about what people may or may not believe, and how they may or may not perceive themselves and those with whom they disagree, these matters are the meat and drink of debate.

So this is calm, and it's called rational debate. There is no lecturing involved in calling for the use of qualification in such statements, it's a normal part of critiquing what someone has written. I feel that either JW is not writing well, or is trying to foist upon the other people in this thread a series of statements about the American electorate which are not substantiated. And i find that to be exercises in political propaganda--i.e., partisan drivel.

Okay, I getcha now.

I like the fact that non 'battleground' states are considered to be immaterial. I suppose some of this is due to historical voting patterns and polling info, but there are always a few surprises come election time, and given the ability to run ads nationally and appeal to a national audience, I wonder why this doesn't happen more...

Texans for Kerry 2004! Unite and we can win!

Cycloptichorn

Re: I Got 99 Problems And George Bush Is One


Calmly pointing to the "JMHO" at the end of my original post. And I do mean humble.

So, then, you say that only those Americans who are church-going are "regular" Americans? Do you assert that all church-going Americans support Bush? Do you assert that those black Americans who voted for Gore in 2000 are not, therefore, church-going? I would also point out that if prayer is in the schools, where it never belonged in the first place, any who bring suit to end it are exercising their right, as "regular" Americans, to oppose the imposition upon their children of beliefs which they do not hold.

You have written, JW: "The left could, I suppose, accomplish their goals sooner if they were willing to change their image (actually the way they're perceived by most "regular" people.)" One readily and reasonably infers from this that you do not consider liberals to be "regular" Americans. This is the sort of political propaganda which Carl Rove and his ilk just love to see spread around. You have also written: "They won't be doing this anytime soon and that's why I believe the majority of the white-working class will vote for Mr. Bush." Is one to infer from this that you do not consider Americans who are not white to be regular Americans? Interestingly, EB has a thread which points out that whites are no longer the majority of the population of Texas. Shall we consign Texas to the nether regions of irregular Americans, not to be trusted in their political decisions?

I could not agree more with you about the tastelessness of ILZ's elitist sneers about the intellectual capacities of the American electorate. I've already noted that i dissociate myself from his elitism. Opposing such foolish snobbery, however, does not authorize a description of "regular" Americans being only the white working class who attend church, and wish to impose prayer on public school children, while opposing gay marriage. It may be true that a majority of Americans feel that way--but it is not demonstrated, and you have so far failed to demonstrate as much. It is certainly becoming rapidly true that not either the majority of Americans, nor the majority of the American working class are white. In it's own way, your vision of what "regular" Americans are is just as sickening and elitist as the most outrageous of ILZ's statements impugning the intelligence of the electorate.

Well, holy cow, Setanta...you do have a way of twisting and turning and putting words into other people's mouths to prove your points. If I'd used all the qualifiers you deem necessary to explain my point, no one would have had a clue what I was talking about LOL.

You can't agree with me about the tastelessness of ILZ's elitist neers about the intellectual capacities of the American electorate, because I never said or implied that. Those are your words and yours only, plus your peculiar interpretation.

I think we've hijacked his thread long enough and no one else seems much interested anyway. I made an observation and stated an opinion both of which were seen by you as sickening, pathetic partisan drivel. I accept that as your observation and opinion of what I wrote and have made note of your suggestions as to the way I write.

I'll be back to read ILZ's remaining points (two down and 97 to go LOL) with great interest, and may even comment on one or two

By the way, I keep getting this mental image of you driving a Volvo and wearing a tshirt that says "Do not argue with me. You will not win."

that is simply totally untrue, I have never lost an arguement with Setanta.

When you describe "regular" Americans as church-going, white working-class people who support Bush, who want prayer in school and who oppose gay marriage, you have indeed implied all of those things, and i have not twisted your words. I've asked you a series of questions which you seem disinclined to answser--and that does not surprise me.

I drive a jeep, and i abhor wearing clothing with writing on it. I am a human being, not a billboard for someone else's banal maunderings.

dyslexia - but...you don't post sickening, pathetic partisan drivel.

Just so you'll know, i am a white, working-class resident of the midwest, who never attends church, opposes the imposition of anyone's superstitions on school children, supports the right of any adults--homosexual or otherwise--to enter into the contract of marriage, and who would not support that idiot Bush if you held a goddamned shotgun to my head.

Just so you'll know . . .

I guess you haven't read many of my posts.

Dunno as I've seen much opportunity presented to determine whether either Set or Dys have carried an argument between themselves one way or another ... 'course that's just as I've noticed, I haven't researched the matter. Mebbe they have had a dispute of which I'm unaware. Oh, and I think both Setanta and Dyslexia would say, regarding me, we each have far more in common than some here might suppose. We each may differ in certain political specific, but we differ in little else.

Yeah, well i'm gooder lookin'n'you are Big Bird, an' if you don't believe that, just ask me . . .

You may have more hair on your head than do I, and far less gray in it than in mine, but I like my ZZ Top-style beard better than your goatee-and moustache rig, and I've got the smaller paunch