This is topic A president is over the whole country, not just his party and states he likes in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
This actually has been bugging me as Kerry's 'liberalism' appears to be something Bush is making a major part of his campaign. As far as I know, Kerry doesn't engage in this kind of bashing, which makes him look much more viable for president, to me, for the reason the title of this forum says.
These kinds of comments to me are at least as bad as the purported 'Screw you, atheist' comments Bush the Elder made. My question is, has Kerry engaged in this kind of ideological mud slinging? Note, we all know Kerry has slung mud at the president's policies in particular, as Bush has slung mud at Kerry's particular policies. This seems to me to be expected and is o.k. and is the core of the political process.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
P.S. Bush can stop picking on Massachusetts, too.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm aware of how liberalism appears to some Republicans. It doesn't change the main point of my post, which is that Bush is giving the finger to a not insignificant portion of the country and kind of sneering at Massachusetts at the same time. If you're supposed to be a uniter and not a divider, it would seem to me to be respectful of htat portion of hte population that isn't already on your side.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Heck, I'd thumb my nose at the state that's elected Ted Kennedy so many times myself. But I'm a conservative (And just plain absolutely HATE Ted Kennedy)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Your personal feelings aside, would you really say so while running for president? Do you really think it's politically smart to thumb your nose at one of the opposition party's elder statesmen while running for president of the United States?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But I'm a conservative (And just plain absolutely HATE Ted Kennedy)"
Why? What'd he do to you?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
If it's Ted Kennedy, yes. But then, I'm never going to run for president, and it would probably be a bad idea for me to do so Are you just DYING that much for Bush's attention or something? I mean, there's no way he's going to be able to convince even a portion of that state to vote for him. It's like Kerry trying to convince people in Texas to vote for him. It's a waste of campaign assets and money. To be disrespectful of the people that live there, well, get used to it. I'm originally from the south, how many people have ever thumbed their noses at southerners? Or Texans for that matter.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Ted Kennedy didn't do anything to me. I just don't like the guy. I've hated the guy since I was like 8 years old. He rubs me the wrong way and I just have a prejudice against him.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
One of the things that really bothers me about conservative America is that "liberal" has become a slur. I'll just have to start calling myself "anti-neoconservative," then.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Don't you think that if you can't come up with a good reason for that prejudice, you should work to eliminate it?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I also can't think of a good reason to work to remove it. Doing so would require a great deal of work. I don't ever plan on living in Massachusetts, so I'm never going to have to live with him being the leader of the state I live in. If I ever have a time when I actually have to deal with getting along with Ted Kennedy, such as if I ever meet the guy and ...I don't know, marry someone he's related to. Then I might think about fixing my prejudice. As it is, It's a battle I don't need to fight. You may ask the same question of a number of Kerry supporters. More often than not, the argument I see for Kerry is that people think Bush is an imbecile. That's just as much reason for prejudice as hating Kennedy because I see him as a morally bankrupt, drunken, lying...person. But anyway, my comment about Kennedy started out as a joke, people took it way too seriously and I decided to string them along. I really do dislike Kennedy, but it really takes someone who is WAY too high-strung to not realize what I said was meant as a joke. Just relax people. The world isn't going to blow itself up, Bush doesn't have the capability of blowing the world up, neither does Kerry. If there's too much tension in the world today, it's because there aren't enough people that are willing to sick back, stare at the clouds and think, "everything's probably gonna be okay afterall." So chill, people. (And as much effort as it's going to take for me to avoid posting in another politcal thread, I've already proven myself incapable of doing so, so this will be the last one I make)
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I haven't heard of Democrats bashing conservatives, I have heard of Democrats bashing "neo-cons." Those evil people whose title just sounds bad and of course they're the ones who really run the government so all you conservatives can still vote for us, and as a previous thread pointed out, we're really trying to save you, yeah its those evil neo-cons.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, you can't really call them "conservative." What self-respecting conservative runs a deficit?
(Edit: Just to be clear, I'm joking.)
[ October 16, 2004, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Neocons are distinct from conservatives. Neocons favor the use of military force and economic sanctions for political reasons, both of which are antithetical to traditional conservatism. Similarly, neocons have no problems with spending, they're out for tax cuts, not fiscal responsibility.
All of these are clearly laid out in neoconservative position papers.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Hey Tres, is this a good reason?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Not really...
quote:I also can't think of a good reason to work to remove it.
How about just because you want to be fair to the guy?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
FC..thanks...I have never been able to find an impartial site on that before now... Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The idea wasn't to be impartial, so you can reel your eyes back in before they roll too far away from you. Tres asked for a reason, and I provided a reason.
Chappaquiddick is a big reason why many people in the country hate Ted Kennedy pretty passionately. So much so that Chappaquiddick theory sites have become a cottage industry - evidenced by the one I linked to. That simply was the first google came up with out of several thousand links. I didn't even really read through it. Taking a closer look, though, you would probably prefer this link. Or if you prefer his own admition of guilt, try here.
The facts are that he got in a car accident where someone died, and neither he nor any of his friends reported it until the next morning. There's an underlying ethics issue there that far outstrips Clinton/Lewinsky. If Clinton's personal ethics are enough of a reason for a portion of the population to hate him, Ted Kennedy's should be more than enough.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm also kinda interested in why Tres doesn't see manslaughter as a good reason.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I wish that same portion of the country would hate republicans when they fail ethical tests that effect a significantly greater number of people then, for example, the lewinsky scandal effected.
But thats too much to hope for
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Probably because he was never convicted because there wasn't enough evidence that he did anything that is actually called manslaughter?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
A mistake 30 years ago is no good reason to hate a guy today, even if that mistake had been proven.
[ October 17, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Convicted? He plead guilty. In Massachusettes, if you leave the scene of an accident, that's manslaughter. He plead guilty to leaving the scene of the accident. There was no conviction, because it never went to a jury.
But you're right. That portion of the country doesn't hold Republicans to the same standard. Then again, there's a portion of the country that holds Republicans to such a high ethical standard, while letting Democrats off the hook.
Personally, I have little respect for anyone who's running the country and almost have gotten to the point where the label "politician" automatically excludes you from having any worth, ethics, respect, or interest in your constituency.
While "hate" is too strong a word for my own reactions to Ted Kennedy, I certainly don't "like" or "trust" him... or anyone else in the Legislative or Executive branches, either. And I can understand why people would hate him, or any career politician.
I tend to agree with Maynard from Tool, but on a larger scale than just LA.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It's a good thing you don't linger on past mistakes, Tres. You're a true American, and like to forget history so you can happily repeat it.
I'm assuming you give Bush the same benefit of the doubt, and have forgiven and forgot all his talk of WMDs and the need to go to war with Iraq. He's got a clean slate in your mind, I'm sure.
And you've forgiven Marion Barry his drug use. Clean slate, again.
And Rush Limbaugh, too, and don't hold any of that against him. And you've forgiven Tim McVeigh for his mistake. And Lee Malvo. And...
I'm never sure with you if you're playing devil's advocate, are passionately idealistic, or are just plain naive.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Remembering a mistake and not hating the person who committed it are two entirely different things. It can be useful to remember mistakes, but hating someone or being prejudiced against him 30 years later is useless.
quote:I'm never sure with you if you're playing devil's advocate, are passionately idealistic, or are just plain naive.
I'd say all of them.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" In Massachusettes, if you leave the scene of an accident, that's manslaughter. He plead guilty to leaving the scene of the accident."
You're right. I apologize.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: hating someone or being prejudiced against him 30 years later is useless.
Whether it's useful or useless is irrelevent.
Is it a reason why people hate the man? Yes. Do you agree that they should hate him because of that? No. Does that diminish the fact that they hate him? No.
It's helpful to be able to see the reasoning behind the beliefs of others, even though you reject those reasons for yourself. So is it a reason to hate him? Yes, for some people. Are you one of those people? No. Am I even one of those people? No. Do those people exist? Yes.
So, therefore, it exists as a reason to hate him, regardless of how *valid* you may find that reason.
As for prejudice, that may be the reason for many people's hatred, but the fact that the hate is prejudiced doesn't mean the hate doesn't exist. Nor can you simply say "stop being prejudiced" and expect any change in their attitudes, for the most part.
[ October 17, 2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The usefullness is all the differnence between a good reason for hating someone and a bad reason.
As I said, if you don't have a good reason for your prejudice against someone, you should work to eliminate that prejudice.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
To send the devil's advocate right back at you, who are you to tell someone else what is "good" or "bad". That's a point of view issue. If you don't feel it's a good reason, then that's your prerogative. They may.
Good and bad are individual descriptors. When speaking about others, telling them their reasons are good or bad is simply being preachy.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:who are you to tell someone else what is "good" or "bad".
I am the one you asked, "Hey Tres, is this a good reason?"
And it's really not a point-of-view issue. Your reasons are either good reasons or bad reasons, based on the reality of the situation, and just because you or I have points of view does not mean those points of view can't be wrong if we can't back them up with good reasons.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I concede that I did ask if that was a good reason, which would be asking you for a value judgment based on your own point of view. So, no problems with you not seeing it as a good one. My bad.
Though, I'm guessing, according to you, there's never any "good" reason to hate anyone. There's no good reason in my mind to hate anyone either, but that doesn't mean someone else can't find their own reason for hatred to be a good one.
What you are saying, I believe, is that there are reasons that can be supported by fact and those that can't. "Backing something up" is not exactly something that goes along with an emotion such as hate. Or love, or lust, or any other emotion for that matter.
A person either feels their reasons for such emotions are good, or they don't. Telling someone they have no good reason to love their husband or wife doesn't stop them from doing so, and doesn't diminish their own reasons for loving that person (which they view as good reasons).
You can't apply logic to hate or love or other powerful emotions. They tend to be irrational, which means the reasoning behind them is fuzzy. That's where point of view comes in.
Are they valid reasons supported by factual evidence? I can't imagine finding any such support for any type of hate... or love. So "good" reasons go back to the eye of the beholder.
Though, again, I did ask you if you thought it was a good reason, and you didn't. Which is fair. However, I think there are several who do find that a very good reason to justify their feelings.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, I certainly can't claim the capacity to convince anyone.... but I can try.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It doesn't change the main point of my post, which is that Bush is giving the finger to a not insignificant portion of the country and kind of sneering at Massachusetts at the same time. If you're supposed to be a uniter and not a divider, it would seem to me to be respectful of htat portion of hte population that isn't already on your side.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)