"WE" are the reason we lost.

[Pepperbelly]

"We" are the ones that the preachers warned their flock against. How many of you have ever heard the Religious Right (RR) claim that they are mocked for their religion or their beliefs? I certainly have.

And if, instead of just assuming they are crazy or wrong or stupid, we actally look at our own public behavior, we will see the roots of how they were able to mobilize so many voters so concretely. It is one thing to disagree with statements made by these preachers; it is another to hold them up to derision and mockery. When they do that to us, it both frightens and angers us. Why would we think that they would feel any differently.

What we need to grasp is the fundamental humanity of all involved, the respect due each of us and each of them as human beings invoking the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

I disagree with the Cobb County, Ga. Evolution sticker on textbooks. However, mocking the concerns of those who support it serves no purpose other than allowing us to celebrate our own superiority while asserting the intellectual inferiority of those who support it. The same thing can be said on issue after issue.

You do not win hearts and minds by mockery. It automatically precludes support from those being mocked and makes them take their business elsewhere. IOW, we are all entitled to believe what we wish and to say what we want. But why would we do it in such a way as to deny basic humanity to those with whom we disagree?

The righties do this. They demonize their opponents. So do we. The problem arises when you consider, for example, the flap over the football lead-in from the other day. People complained about the "nudity" (I know, it was a naked back. So what?) and we immediately believe those who complain as puritans, fundies, hypocrites, etc. But the truth is that Gallup found that 70% of the population is concerned.

Because more are concerned does not mean that anyone should adopt their position. What it does say is that it is a dead-bang loser to ridicule them for that belief. A little respect would hurt no one.

on edit: it's like this, if you say to the Cobb County Creationist, "You're a hillbilly, a cretin and a goatfucker but hey, my guy's better on jobs and gay marriage, vote for him. k?"

Where does that leave you?

[LARED]

1. I think you make some

valid points.

Prepared to be flamed.

[Pepperbelly]

5. I'm ready.

Tee-hee.

Actually, I'm leaving for work in a few minutes and will have to sort it out when I get home this evening.

:D

[T Town Jake]

2. Hope you got your asbestos suit on...

...cause I predict the thread flames are about to commence...

[radwriter0555]

64. It's not really "LOSING" when the bad guys lie, cheat and steal to gain

their ground.

[mondo joe]

82. I'm afraid losing is still losing. You can only play on the field you've

I'm afraid losing is still losing. You can only play on the field you've got, and if the field is a disadvantage for you you've to make up for it somehow.

[whalerider55]

3. hmmmmm

this is a very thoughtful posting. your call for a more careful use of language is very consistent with the work of the Public COnversations Project in MA, which has been promoting dialogue in "intractable conflicts" conmflicts. first, you stop calling each other names (demonizing), then you get know the other party, finally, you realize that you actually agree on 90% of stuff, and where you disagree, you disagree respectfully but can appreciate the humanity of the other party.

it is ironic, though (pobably only to me) that here in MA, the fisttoehold of puritanism in "the New World", we've legalized gay marriage and have the lowest divorce rate in the nation...


whalerider55

[sniffa]

4. i disagree

if we give an inch, they'LL take a miLe. they shouLd be caLLed out for what they are and make their side Look unattractive at aLL times.

i'LL hammer that wedge even deeper.

[LittleClarkie]

7. Their side already looks unattractive with no help from you

All we do in copying their tactics is diminish ourselves.

Do not mirror that which you hate, even if you do so from the Progressive side.

[bones_7672]

22. So unatractive that they won a majority of the popular vote?? n/t

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

6. Interesting point of view...

... that shows some thought and experience. You are right, by mocking you alienate them, and that makes them put their "shields up" to any facts you may offer. It has become epidemic in some places.

This should be an interesting thread to keep an eye on.

[high density]

8. 70% of the population is concerned?

So why do they watch these "offensive" shows on TV? Not only do these shows have high ratings to go with their violence and sex, they also come from these right-wing corporations that claim to be all high and mighty. The people who watch Fox News to get all of their information are the same ones pissed off by the Fox network airing some tasteless reality show.

[DebJ]

13. it is built into the hypocrites normal position of 'holier than thou'

you know, go to church on Sunday, but Monday to Friday go to work, work your slaves at low wages and longer hours with no O.T., come home satisfied that You Are Worth It, the rest are not...you are better than everyone else, whom you squash into little derisive boxes. Pharisees and hypocrites, all. I am Christian, but this behavior is the reason I do not attend any church services.

[seabeyond]

43. a large percentage of that 70% are mere parents

and why do they watch, what a football game. any number of tv shows that are children oriented with a commercial thrown in that isnt appropriate. cartoon channel that has sexual connotations all over, and violence and anger

i tell you what the parent concern is, and i am flamed as being a fundie, a prude.

these are things that arent appropriate for children. and parents do have a problem with it. not to shelter their children, but the children today have it all over the place, whereever they go

it is a concern for regular parents that enjoy their sex life, want to deny no adult their porn or adult programming, just want a child safe enviroment for their kids, and arent getting it

parents are now to the point, about their only option is to turn off tv. piises parents off, this is what we want for our children. but i dont get the support on this board, have had it range from, i am shielding children from real world, to screw the kids, i will have what i want on tv and children be damn

it isnt something we get here.

the 70% isnt all fundies. or sex shy adults. just merely parents

[MSgt213]

9. In my opinion a person's views deserve respect if they are sincere about

those views and they are sincere about allowing me to have my own. And by sincere I mean that you are not regularly going on TV programs and the radio bashing with wild abandon members of my party and claiming they are doing things that you yourself are doing until you get caught.

Don't claim you are against trial lawyers and then use lawyers to deny people the right to vote. Don't claim you are against drugs, unwed sex, gambling and every other vice until you get caught doing it yourself. Don't preach to me about the lord and live in million dollar homes and build monuments to yourself all over the country. Ridicule them. Yea, I will ridicule the hypocritical bastards.

[cally]

10. We all need to show more understanding

and respect for others. I find it hard to not show my anger and dismay at most Americans blatant ignorance. We just refuse to look at the facts and evidence but vote on feelings. I know I'm elitist and it does dismiss most other viewpoints. I agree with you. Our elitism hurts our cause.

[high density]

15. "Refuse to look at facts and evidence but vote on feelings" ????

I don't understand... Is that sarcasm? You mean the facts on Iraq, the tanked economy, etc?

[cally]

18. I think most American voters choose a candidate

on superficial feelings. We, Americans, don't want the facts but instead choose the fluff. Is he attractive? His wife is deferential. He's a strong leader. He's a Christian. He has family values.

None of this makes sense but that's my point. American voters don't make sense.

[high density]

24. OK, I agree with that...

When you wrote "we" in your earlier post, I thought you meant people that visit this site. But when you mention "we" as a whole nation, I agree with your assessment.

[masaka___]

11. Maybe Bush didn't win.

don't give in, yet.

[cali]

12. No flames from me but

I think this is an intractable situation. And some positions don't deserve respect. The rampant and ugly face of homophobia doesn't. The xenophobic anti-immigrant position doesn't. The contempt and dislike of the poor doesn't. I don't have a problem with those who criticize the coarsness of the popular culture- though in many ways this is nothing new. I do have a huge problem with elevating creationism to the level of evolution. I don't have a problem with abstinence education. I do have one with teaching abtinence and not teaching teenagers about safe sex. I think we have to pick and choose what to mock. As far as hypocricy goes, I'm always mindful that, as E.M. Forester said:

"Only hypocrites cannot forgive hypocricy."

[H2O Man]

14. You don't cure hate

with more hate. You don't curb impatience with more impatience. You can't disolve ignorance with more ignorance. If one room in your house is dangerously dark, you turn a light on.

[secedeeconomically]

99. Assuming there is a light switch there

[DebJ]

16. great post. Do not become that which you hate

[acmavm]

17. I have no problem respecting someone else's beliefs, UNLESS

they use them to defend killing, thievery, election fraud, child abuse, bigotry, and the insane idea that bush* is a compassionate Christian. Then all bets are off.

It's not the logical thinking believers, the one with compassion and an true regard for human life and liberties that we're having a problem with. It's the nut cases and the bigots who believe that God speaks through their two-legged freakshow of a leader that are causing so much trouble. The delusional ones.

I believe, but I also understand when the Ten Commandments says dont do something it means don't do it. Somehow these buffoons seem to think there's a qualifier behind them, sort of like 'Thou shalt not kill unless...'

[CoffeeAnnan]

19. The basic problem with this post is that it completely ignores what

has been happening in this country for the past ten years or more.The Right Wing religious zealots undermined President Clinton's presidency on the ground he was immoral.They followed this up with elevating a drug addict, AWOl,alcoholic Bush as the savior of this country.Their followers had no tolerance for anyone other than right wing Christians.They were the ones who wanted to breach the wall between state and religion.They want us to accept faith as the basis of our thinking when our Western tradition is based on evidence and reason.To make nicey nice with them will not work.

[H2O Man]

25. It does not suggest

"to make nicey nice with the." Rather, it says that many democrats are reacting to the loud-mouthes on the far right. And by reacting to them, we at times offend those in the middle.

Rather than reacting, this post advocates that we respond. That does not mean trying to win the acceptance of the far right. Not even close.

The post actually does take very close note of what has been happening in this country for the past 25 years. The religious right has learned how to bait the left. This post merely says that we can take something a bit more thoughtful than a knee-jerk reaction. The tactic that has been used for years has benefited the far-right at the expense of the middle and left. By changing from reacting to responding, we do not make "nicey nice." We win.

[robbedvoter]

20. uh, we won. Wuz robbed, Pass it on.

Just because we didn't have a ballsy candidate like the Ukrainians, don't make us losers. Blame the DNC fot that one

But you keep studying the new reality - I saw Andrew Sullivan peddling it last.


''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And
while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Bush aide to Ron Suskind

[no_hypocrisy]

21. I'm not about to relinquish criticism and critical thinking because it

makes other people feel inferior and/or uncomfortable. To use their terminology, I'm not going to put my "flame under a bundle". This isn't hubris or arrogance. It's intellect and there is a place for it. Why should we adjust to the lowest common denominator? I'm willing to change enough so I'm understood, but I won't stop trying to improve situations as I find them.

[Eric J in MN]

23. I didn't insult a the Cobb County Creationist, and

I don't know anyone here who did.

[VivaKerry]

26. I have historically been respectful , but no more.

At THIS point, these people and their 'beliefs" which are becoming policy are in my face.

By letting them be who they are, with their insane thinking, we allowed them to take over our f'ing country. Now look where we are.

It was by saying "well, it's a free country", and if that guy rush limbaugh makes his advertizers money, so be it. Now look where we are.

We have murdered how many MUSLIMS in the last few years because we allowed the RR to take over our govts. Now look where we are going -- war with Iran on the new war agenda.

No, this is the time to push for reality based thinking... to hold mirrors up to these yay-hoos faces. Seems every born again christian in MY immediate environment (work, other activities) decries all that trinity channel vitriol. Well, at this point, if a christian does not openly and loudly DENOUNCE the Radical Religious Right, then they are enabling it, and may as well be monthly donors to that insane crowd.

No, this is not the point where being nice and respectful comes in. The gloves are off.

I appreciate your sentiments, immensely. It makes so much sense there in black and white. But JESUS CHRIST, they got where they are simply because we DID practice bona fide respect and tolerance for them.

Btw, WHERE is the proof that these poor religious fundies 'felt' derided by the left? It didn't happen, and you are re-writing history by suggesting that it did... that we weren't rational or kind enough to the bozos. Bullcrap.... I will say it again: THEY GOT WHERE THEY ARE BECAUSE OF THE TOLERANCE FROM THE LEFT. And where they are is not good for anyone. The world is in a crisis because of these armageddon-lusting crazies. No thank you.

[SammyWinstonJack]

79. Very true

"THEY GOT WHERE THEY ARE BECAUSE OF THE TOLERANCE FROM THE LEFT."

[VivaKerry]

27. Re: 70% are 'concerned' about the football ad

Think about that PepperBelly.

WHY are 70% concerned about that?

Might it be because they were TOLD to be concerned?

the propaganda from the religious right being streamed into people's heads 24/7 TOLD them to be concerned.

We are not a nation of independent thinkers any longer. We are lazy, fat, boring and sit in front of the tv constantly. We are on SOMA, basically, the religious right's SOMA.

I think people need to be slapped back into thinking, and if that means that on the 100th time they get a look from me that says "are ya nuts?", then so be it.

70 percent are concerned. Yeah, and bush won by a MANDATE. And Saddam had WMD. And Iraq orchestrated 9/11. **insert any of the insane lies blasted into the heads of americans 24/7*** I would suggest that 70% of americans have not had an original thought in about 6 years!

[arwalden]

28. Bullshit! They Don't Deserve ANY Respect. That Only Legitimizes...

... their wholesale hatred and bigotry all in the name of CHRIST! Fuck that shit!

They have no "humanity"... they are selfish hypocrites... all in the name of GOD!

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salin]

36. my once reasonable brother

always tries to pick political fights with me. I haven't brought up politics with him in at least five years. I try not to be goaded - but the contempt with which he makes his points echo the worst of hate radio. It bleeds into other discussions as well, and he suddenly takes an ugly tone that is almost unexplainable... once I was attending one of his son's swim meets - he didn't tell me it was a four hour event. I had been involved with heavy deadlines - and took a break to go to the event - hadn't eaten before going (thinking it was a 1-1 1/2 hour event)... once there, several hours in, I notice people with popcorn... comment on it - as in ... didn't know they are serving food, think I will go get some... and suddenly his mocking, derisive tone which he had always reserved for his political digs came out and told me to shush (as if in the loud meet, my comment about food - when I hadn't eaten and thought I was just going for a few moments... was offensive and contemptable... wtf?) Later in the day I finally asked him if he was having a bad day, as his attitude towards anything I said was really out of line - and he backed off.

I have thought a great deal about this. First his digs that I tried to avoid (we disagree... no big deal), then over time his responses to nearly anything I say (note- nothing political said) which seemed extremely puzzling. Wondered if I had done something to deeply offend him - but there was nothing there... the only explanation is that in his rw coccoon where he listens to rw hate radio where "liberals" are treated to contempt he had redrawn me, mentally, into some kind of caricature... and started treating me accordingly. Very disturbing.

Am going to his house for Thanksgiving. As usual I will avoid all political conversations and goading. But I will not stay silent if he treats anything I say on any topic with general disdain (except college prospects for his sons... he seeks out my insight and advice on that front)... I will respond as I did before, not with reciprocal assualt but with calling him on his behavior (he doesn't really see himself as a bore - and generally doesn't act like one.) I am dreading tomorrow.

Had to respond here because the political tone in this country does make me want to cry. and I can't quite swallow that it is all my fault.

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

39. No, of course it's not all your/my/our fault! BUT

We are the ones who are supposed to be DIFFERENT! We are the ones who have a legitimate claim to the MORAL - yes, MORAL high ground!

Have you ever met a Nazi sympathizer who would vote for a Democrat? No, of course not.

But when people on OUR side start sounding like Nazis "they have no humanity" we're not far from that! I mean no disrespect to arwalden, whose posts I enjoy, and I understand that he is probably speaking from deep hurt. But what's the next step after "they have no humanity" ? It IS to put them in camps/kill them. Why not? After all, they have no humanity.

We cannot claim to be the defenders of liberty and tolerance if we are just mirror images of them. And if there are no defenders of liberty and tolerance left, we are all royally fucked.

[salin]

45. there is a limit

as I said, we have been under this kind of public - widespread assault for YEARS and the first response came... this spring.... but now the resposne is the problem? I think, frankly, that the response is long overdue. I am just more polite in person than to vent to people such as my brother - but how much contempt do we have to swallow from the other side before it is reasonable that people snap back? May not be the answer you seek, and yes we already are royally fucked becuase those that hold americans and american values in contempt rule all branches of government and have already shown that they daily act on their contempt with awful policy fiats. Taking a higher road has done nothing but earn us even more contempt at their hands because there has been no response. I think that they have taken us so far down the road that in the short term there is absolutely NO reversal - it makes me terribly sad, but I do understand it.

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

47. You might be right.

I just know several people like her, and we didn't get any of their votes. If we didn't make them feel like we see them as lacking in humanity, we would have.

I don't know the answer. I really don't.

[salin]

51. I doubt those votes would have shifted

they didn't in all of the years where there wasn't a response... and yet this year... we "lost" their votes?

No offense but my first presidential election and the next one taught me a big lesson about bs answers given by "polite" people on the other side.

In 1984 people claimed to switch away from Mondale because of Ferrar - stating that it wasn't because she was female, but that because she just didn't have the experience (as a six time elected congress woman) to take over the oval office were tragedy to hit. Believe it or not the huge reagan love-fest didn't kick in until his second term... many folks didn't want to admit that they were voting for him... so there were tons of folks who later gave the "ferraro's lack of experience" excuse.

But in 1988... Dan Quayle - two terms in congress one in the senate and a much bigger lightweight than ferraro... wasn't a problem that prevented those same folks for pulling the lever of bushsr.

Made me deeply cynical about the "I would have but" claims of voters... now cast them in the "I really knew better, and am kinda ashamed of my vote... but I have found a safe excuse for it... but of course that excuse would never apply in the same situation going in the opposite (party) direction.."

For example... air america a big problem (they hold us in contempt).... but Cheney telling a senator to fuck himself wasn't, or Cheney saying to america that deficits don't matter (another form of "fuck yourself and your grandchildren, too") those things aren't a sign of contempt for a chunk of Americans? Just not buying it.

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

52. Again, you might be right.

I can only say that these are reasonable people who have gay friends, believe in separating church and state, etc., and we didn't get their votes. There is something very wrong with this picture.

Surely someone on our side is smart enough to figure out how to reverse it.

[salin]

56. Were it not for far superior

spin and control of stories in the media of rove and friends - I might agree with you. However, even the most egregious stories about bushco actions - gets very short shrift coverage and gets quickly managed and reframed with some sorta plausable story... giving cover to those who want to believe it. I honestly believe this had a much more substantial effect on voters to whom you refer. They are given just enough to use to rationalize issues to be able to live with them rather than look at the stark reality of those issues and the implication for the future.

Otherwise how does she vote for the party of Santorum with his despicable depictions of gays... and pretend that this is not generally accepted and believed by many on that side? Or how to explain the cynical move to push the gay marraige issue onto the ballot in many states, if not to appeal to the baser instincts of some voters? All not hard to see - unless one is looking for the rationalizations that rove et al put out there continuously. They are masterful at controlling media message.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

162. We didn't get their votes because that is NOT POSSIBLE

WE must not go for THEIR votes,,we must turn them in on each other.

[Pithlet]

215. Yes

I'm so tired of these calls to pander to votes that we will never get anyway. Some ideas ARE worthy of ridicule, and shoving creationism into the public schools is one of them. The people who propose such a thing SHOULD be laughed out of the boardroom.

[arwalden]

40. I Repeat... They Have *NO HUMANITY* .... Dude!

They are animals. They are vermin. They are loathsome and beneath contempt.

Go ahead... insult me if you wish. All the personal attacks in the world will not make me think any more of them.

>> Your post has me tears. <<

Boo-fucking-hoo! Go ahead and cry for THEM... forget about their VICTIMS, forget about liberty and justice and equality for all!

>> We cannot defeat them if we are exactly like them, only a mirror image coming from the other side. <<

Oh yes... I see now. We can only "defeat" them by continuing to play nice and turning the other cheek! We must set a "good example" and play fair and by the rules. Brilliant!

Hey! Look around! It ain't working! --- It appears that many folks are falling for the wolf in sheepskin disguise, the myth of the Conservative Christian victim has fooled many, there's no such thing as a compassionate conservative. They are not victims, they are the fucking aggressors. THIS IS WAR and they are the ENEMY!!

What's not to get?

>> Please....talk to someone. <<

Oh, that's real nice... lovely!! Your concerns and public doubts about my mental health are duly noted. Thanks, Gryffindor_Bookworm.

>> No humanity? What's next? Putting them in camps? <<

What an idiotic thing to say. This is what THEY want to do!!

>> This is gut-wrenching. My God. :cry: :cry: :cry: <<

I have about as much respect for those damned idiots as I have for a bleeding puss-filled bovine anal wart. They disgust me. They are vile.

-- Allen

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

55. I Honestly Believe That They Are Vile Monsters. No Humanity!!

>> Clinton = not hateful, won. <<

Kerry, not hateful. Lost. What's your point?

>> 2004 election season = filled with hateful rhetoric, lost. <<

Were you on the same planet this past year? I guess you missed all the "hateful rhetoric" from their side... didn't seem to do them much harm.

>> I have no idea what your mental health is like. <<

You're god-damned right, you don't! NO IDEA!

>> But I say again that "they have no humanity" is a breath away from "put them in camps" or "kill them." <<

And your "we need more compassion and understanding" and "we must love our enemy" approach is a breath away from "we surrender" and "feel free to fuck us up the ass with your flagpole". Thank you sir, may we have Patriot Act 2... and make it more infringing, please!

>> You are on the edge of a cliff that's truly frightening if you honestly believe that these people have no humanity. <<

Again, thanks for your evaluation of my mental health, Gryffindor_Bookworm. Do I owe you anything... will you accept Blue Cross?

The overwhelming evidence of their complete inhumanity speaks for itself. They have utter contempt for equality and fairness and justice. They wipe their asses with the Constitution. Some people choose to ignore it, and that's a naive approach.

[salin]

58. let's see....

disdain for programs for the truley needy... nope, no humanity there and certainly not following the teachings of Christ...

trashing of the environment of corporate earnings... nope, no concern for the long term ability of humanity to survive and no concern for those being poisoned (as we get rid of superfund cleanup, etc.), and no following of Christian teachings about stewardship of God's creation...

willful agression and destruction on civilians of a country that posed no threat... most Christian ethicists agreed at the time (even before we knew the real state of nonintelligence backing the claims of WMDs) that the war did not raise to the level of "just war"... even the Pope warned against this war...

promotion of greed - hits both on promoting coveting, and raising greed to the level of idolotry (idolize the ammassing of wealth to the point where behaviors to get it defy all the teachngs of one's religion... for example, Pat Robertson investing in the diamond business though knowing the wanton killings involved, or his involvement in horse racing, etc; the justification of the actions of enron type accounting and corporate fraud - that is still running rampant -or the nobid contracts given in Iraq which have been used to gouge tax payers - and have no provision about hiring iraqis who face even higher unemployment in post invasions Iraq than in preinvasion iraq...

That and more - leaves me to continue to believe that we are in an era of false prophets that are leading "good" people to act in ways that betray their faith and lead them farther from God... and that those who continue to support the policies listed above - all of which there is plenty of information out there to back up each claim and result... makes it understandable that some question whether the humanity has been sold out within some supporters.

[arwalden]

62. God Hates Fags

[salin]

65. and requires stoning (?) of those eating shellfish

they drop that part...

Sort of a double wammy for folks in your area if they like the region's famous crabcakes...

[arwalden]

71. Mmmm.... Cra-a-a-ab Ca-a-a-akes.... arr-r-r-ghh-h-h-h!

[salin]

74. and for the heck of it... GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrow

treeeeees!

[arwalden]

77. Heh-heh...

We haven't done that in AGES!! :hi:

[salin]

80. 'twas about time!

have to sign off shortly for the day - but will be here off and on through the weekend - hope to catch up with you again then! :hug: :hi:

[arwalden]

63. God STILL Hates Fags

[salin]

67. Seems to be some logs in those eyes...

nope, no humanity present with that group...

[arwalden]

69. ... but let's try to win them over with respect for their views... m'kay!

:eyes:

[salin]

70. because it is only due to our lack of adequate respect

that they treat us with such contempt.... {/sarcasm}

[secedeeconomically]

109. How can you reason these religious freaks?

They see the world through a prism called religion. They will never see it your ways. Wake up

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

130. Right.

In a country where over 90% believe in God and over 50% attend church services regularly, calling them freaks and alienating them as viciously as we possibly can is DEFINITELY the way to get them to vote for us next time.

It's worked so well for us thus far -- let's keep it up! :thumbsup:

[fujiyama]

164. How the hell was our side

filled with "hateful rhetoric"? We certainly didn't engage in that. The only side filled with that is the right and they won big!

The Kerry campaign did all they could to not air negative ads. Remember the gag rule during the convention keeping it "positive"?

This is complete utter nonsense. We are getting our asses handed to us because we can't take them on. We're trying to respect people that deserve none. I won't respect theocratic fascists. These people are brainwashed. I have no respect for Falwell and Robertson.

And no one is talking about putting anyone in camps. Quit exagerrating.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

178. So are you saying Kerry was too hateful? I hadn't noticed.

Clinton PANDERED to these people...he also had the benefit of Perot..Kerry and Gore GOT far more of a percentage of votes than Clinton ever did.

Clinton gave the most humble humane address at the Dem convention then rushed home to witness an execution.

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

189. No, not Kerry.

Us. Our side. Referring to all Christians as snake-handlers. Malloy telling that kid on his show to go open a vein. All the other things we (INCLUDING MYSELF, I am NOT excusing myself of responsibility) said and did when reasonable middle-of-the-road types were listening.

We are never going to win elections if we don't get new voters. Does it not make sense to go after middle-of-the-road types?? And is the way to do that to mock and dehumanize them? "You are vermin! You have no humanity! Now vote for us!"

[sonicx]

197. AAR relatively speaking...

has a small audience. Especially at night. I'm guessing 90%+ of Malloys audience is hardcore liberal. Middle of the road people should listen to Franken (he's a middle of the roader).

The main component of the election is in the big media like cable news, networks, and the newspapers. On those, there were no people on 'our side' bashing Christians. Most people that do 'bash christians' are just bashing the right wing freaks (oh no, i called them freaks! we're gonna lose!! :crazy:)

[secedeeconomically]

104. This is music to my ears

Finally someone with some ball (figuratively speaking) lol)

[arwalden]

127. LOL... Well... I Have *Two* Actually...

But who's counting? -- Thanks for the nod! :-)

[datasuspect]

125. old tin machine lyric

"speak in extremes, it will save you time."

when CAN we stop pussyfooting? when they start rounding us up, when the economy completely collapses?

[arwalden]

132. Precisely.

NO MORE PUSSYFOOTING (damn it)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

160. I'm with you, Allen. These people are worthy of hatred..they don't deserve

an inch. This is not political gamesmanship...this is WAR for the soul of America. There is no common ground. You don't sit there looking at a person who has a gun to your head and say,"You know, maybe you have a point!"

There are NO POINTS OF AGREEMENT in a war of intimidation...we must fight the domination of their HATEFUL SCAPEGOATING brand of society

[arwalden]

191. Ah... A Breath Of Fresh Air. A Rational Thought In A Sea Of INSANITY!!!

I'm drowning in this FUCKING INSANITY!!

[salin]

29. local repubs

have stalked democrat office holders, engaged in their own swiftboat type ads at the last minute against a dem congressman (who lost as a result)... before being redistricted another sitting congressman (repub) represented us, and he brought breast cancer survivors (constituents) to tears - when they did their annual visit to the capitol to raise awareness of the (lack of) medical research funding on the issue... see he didn't want to talk about breast cancer funding... he went on and on and on about studies linking breast cancer to abortions - making the survivors feel that he was accusing them of having had abortions - since they have had breast cancer...

Really hard not to react when this is the reality of local/regional republicans.

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

30. You make a great point.

I have a friend who really should be a Democrat, but she voted for Bush. She's a devout Christian (but we have several gay friends in common, so she's no homophobic lunatic). She turned on Air America one night (sigh) and came away so insulted (evidently Janeane and Sam were making fun of Christians pretty seriously) that she told me she just couldn't support a party that hated her that badly. I tried to convince her otherwise, but she said that when the flagship station for a political party acts like that, it's a little like the abusive ex-boyfriend. "You stupid, worthless idiot! Come back to me! I'll make you love me! I'll make you see it MY way! I'm right and you're wrong and I'll make you see it!"

And you know what? She had a point. I have never treated her that way, but if she tuned in to Air America or swung by us here at DEMOCRATICunderground, she could reasonably walk away feeling like that.

"A little respect would hurt no one." You're damn right.

[VivaKerry]

34. But she supports a party who hates HER gay friends that badly?

I said above, if they gave a pass to the radical right, they may as well BE the radical right, and suffer the insults.

I swear... I feel like we are debating why we should let an out of control child ruin our dinner. Let her be; just give her respect. I say, send her to her room till she gets a clue about the impact of her anti-social behavior.

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

35. Here's what she says about that.

1. It was CLINTON who signed DOMA, not a Republican.
2. Republicans have been in control for all but 9 years of her life (she was born during the last year of Carter) and gays are no worse off than they were then.
3. She thinks that the talk of the FMA was just talk, since it will never pass enough states anyway.
4. Gays are more open today than ever before, portrayed positively on TV and in the media, and can legally marry in MA. Her belief is that it will take some time, but the country is gradually becoming more accepting anyway.

And you know what? I am more afraid than she is that FMA just might pass, but 1, 2, and 4 are factual statements, and 3 is not an unreasonable opinion. What exactly was I supposed to come back with. :shrug:

[VivaKerry]

41. Come back with this:

1. watch the trinity broadcast channel for a few hours, catch falwell's stuff for sure.
2. look into bob jones university and see what they are about.

And ask her to take her sense of insult back a bit, and ask herself, reasonably, if she really thinks jeanene was talking about her.

Ask her to not take it so personally. She is asking the gays to NOT take it personally.

Maybe show her some pics of bush supporters with signs that say, "God hates fags."

Seriously, she doesn't want an ounce of criticism about her personal stuff, but she seems quite capable of rationalizing why gays shouldn't feel oppressed and targeted? that's selective thinking. Which is probably the primary reason Jeanene was lambasting the religious zealots....

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

44. Those are good ideas.

She's been looking for a distance-learning program to get her master's. I'll print out the BJU information and see how she reacts. :evilgrin:

Where can I find a link proving that Fred Phelps is a Republican? That would be gold for me, because a lot of my right-wing family members insist he's a Democrat.

But on Janeane, she does think Janeane was talking about her (I think the topic was people who really believe God created the earth, which she does.)

[salin]

53. Would still guess that Janeane's comments

were less about the general belief about God creating earth, as much as the literal interpretations of "seven days" that some use to suggest that the earth is much younger than science suggests, and thus that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, and other explanations making their way into discourse (such as the book sold at the Grand Canyon which denies any scientific explanations for the canyon's creation and dates it as much younger than science indicates - but those explanations are swallowed with the "devil put the science stuff in their to decieve us...") that is where it gets wacky.

There are many, myself included, that do not think that science and Christian beliefs are incompatible. Doubt Janeane was targetting the vast majority of Christians (on this particular subject the rw view above is NOT the predominant belief...)

[Blue Wally]

83. And I would come back with.....

I have never watched Trinity Channel and have no idea where or what it is.

I know about Bob Jones University, but in the 65 years of my life, the existence of Bob Jones University has had zero effect.

[salin]

86. 'cept maybe spreading susceptability

of scarolina voters to the absurd smears mounted by clubbush against mccain in the 2000 primaries?

[salin]

38. er... that first tone and derision started more

than twelve years ago... taking over local radio station after local radio station.... oh, but it is only a problem and offensive when it comes from the right? See my note above about the toll of the ongoing talk radio onslaught on one of my family relations...

If she can recognize that what she experienced is what a big portion of the population has been putting up with for years - and that yes, it is a big problem for political discourse... then I would treat her and anyone else with this complaint about Air America seriously. If not, its just more cloaked excuses that can only see the bad on the side of democrats/liberals/progressives - and I just couldn't take her complaint seriously.

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

42. I pointed that out to her -- that what she experienced is what

people like me have heard from Limbaugh for years.

Her response was, "And if you tuned into Limbaugh honestly hoping to hear the other side's point of view, I'd feel sorry for you. That IS why I tuned into Air America. And what I heard was condescending at best and vicious at worst. They are making your party no friends."

[salin]

49. The point of Air America isn't to win friends

just as Limbaugh isn't trying to convert liberals. It is a rallying point for the "troops" - and one that gets information over the airwaves (esp since it gets harder and harder to find complete stories in the media) and issues into the public dialogue because that info gets into the hands of the "troops". If she was listening to it to get the message of the democrats, she was as mistaken as she says you would be to listen to Limbaugh for the same reason.

[ladjf]

32. There is a global epidemic of religionism and it's bringing

death and destruction to the entire planet. That is not to say that
anyone should treat religionists inhumanely. They are literally sick and they aren't going to get well by glossing over their condition.

[Hoosier Democrat]

33. You are right...

While I would never call for any kind of embrace of the truly "Radical Religious Right", we do have to realize that a lot of these "Moral Values Voters" are not fire-breathing Fundies but people who, in their way of thinking, are feeling belittled and mocked because of their faith.

As a nation, we have always been a little afraid of change and society is changing, wether any of us like it or not. Gay marriage will be legalized, just as inter-racial marriage was legalized a generation ago. While the truly Radical Right will continue to use "Taditional Marriage" as a euphemism for Vitriolic Homophobia, many perople in this country fear gay marriage because they have never actually met a gay person (that they know of).

We, as a party, also don't do ourselves any favors by tying ourselves to Hollywood. Take Madonna, for example. Sure, she's a fantastic entertainer. Here in Middle America, however, a lot of people still think of her as the floozie who made the kinky videos and put out a nudie book starring herself.

I'm just afraid that if we, as a party, continue to disregard all concerns about morality we will doom ourselves to minority status for a generation. Like it or not, people do care about public morality.

[HeeBGBz]

37. I was always polite to them until November 3

When subjected to their incessant "witnessing", I would listen and change the subject. I never told them how annoying it was for them to "assume" I was not a Christian. I was polite and tried to let things slide because I tried to repect their beliefs even if I didn't share them.

On November 3, I was decimated by the results of the election and all I faced was gloating and arrogance. At that point, I decided no more missus nice guy. They stole the country because too many people were "nice" and let them run unchecked.

[Sleepless In NY]

50. I don't want to win their hearts & minds anymore

Look, its fine when they bash us, we deal with it. Thats not what made "us" lose. What made us lose was a vote banning gay marriage/civil unions, same day as the presidential election.

I wish I could respect their "views" but since they dont respect mine, never the twain shall met. And I have no desire to win the hearts and minds of bigots, who rather have no jobs, no health insurance, no stem cell research, just along as those "homos can't get married"

Thats it in a nutshell. Simple.


And I dont want to "appeal" to them. They want bush? fine with me. I want them off my back & out of my wallet. Seems a fair exchange.

[seabeyond]

48. in the micro of what you suggest

being accepting respectful and embracing of the fundies beliefs did not make things more peaceful. my children went to a fundie school, and were the only ones not a part of the bushco cult. they had to continually turn the other cheek. the kinder they were the more they were attacked. was like giving the kids and adults free reign to persecute the children for being unchristian. this group of people once they decide you are not christian are free to be as ugly and mean as they deem necessary.

we tried the respect path. didnt work for us

[Metatron]

54. I don't agree.

The Democrats actually running for office do not use mockery when they campaign. Activists for both parties have sites (DU, FR, etc.) where they go to blow off steam, castigate the fools on the other side, debate intra-party issues, etc. I see no evidence that people bitching on either site convinced voters to vote for their guy - because they are basically preaching to their respective choirs.

I don't talk politics with raging Republicans in my family - I will never change their minds and they will never change mine. I am glad to discuss politics with relatives (or strangers) who are not ideologues because actual discussion can take place. I tend to try and educate as I do it, rather than taking a hardline partisan approach. My favorite heated political discussions usually take place with Democrats - we both know we are voting for the Dem so we can enjoy debating the finer points of the party, policy, whatever.

I honestly think people are confusing the conversation of partisan activists with the public face of the Democratic party and presenting an issue that doesn't exist.

[robbedvoter]

57. Let's be nice to fascist thugs - maybe next time they'll let us win

Yup. It always forked well, throughout the history.
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/11/19/125843/98

[robbedvoter]

59. Falwell : We're a JudeoChristian nation if you aren't, YOU PAY THE PENALTY

Are you saying we should have the penalty in advance?

[mondo joe]

60. "When you husband beats you it's because you provoked him."

I'm done with this political version of battered wife syndrome.

The problem isn't that we think idiots are idiots.

It's that we didn't hit the opposition hard enough.

[arwalden]

66. Brilliant!! That's The Perfect Analogy!!!

:-)

[mondo joe]

72. I can't tell you how sick I am of that battered wife syndrome in politics

"Oh no, you'll make Freepers mad at us!"

"Maybe if we were nicer they wouldn't hit us so much!"

I'm sooooo fucking sick of it.

You don't see the GOP walking around second guessing itself and trying to play nice - and you didn't see them doing that when Clinton was in office either.

[H2O Man]

73. Cheap shot.

The poster did not write anything that justifies such a cheap shot as the "battered wife syndrome" baloney. I suspect that this is more a sign of frustration than anything else, but it is not fair to misrepresent what whas actually said. The idea is not to embrace the far-right in terms of there religious bullshit. It is to refine the tactics the democratic left takes.

The simplest rule in campaigns is that there are three groups: {a} those always on your side; {b} those always opposed to you; and {c} the undecided folks in the middle. The poster is not saying we need to waste energy trying to convert group "b." Rather, the idea is to not react to "b" in a way that makes us look like jerks to "c," and makes "b" look more appealing.

We have no power to change anyone but ourselves. And while it's true that the problem isn't that "we think idiots are idiots," that would hardly be a reason for us to behave like idiots ourselves. And only the most stubborn of fools thinks that they can affect change by remaining the same.

Regarding the part about we didn't hit the opposition hard enough: that is absolutely, 100% correct. But we need to re-think how to hit harder. Listen: I boxed for many years, and trained fighters for many more. Politics, when done correctly, is like a boxing match. When your opponent fouls you, if you react and foul them back immediately, you'll always have the ref call you on it. He'll instruct the judges to take a point away from you. I learned that you don't "react," you "respond." Out-smarting your opponent is the best response. If that ref and those judges are convinced you are a "good sport," then you can get away with taking the appropriate steps.

Our goal isn't about domestic abuse. Don't go there. We are in the fight of our lives, and it's in the political ring. There are tricks of the trade that we need to learn. This poster isn't suggesting that you convert to the nearest right-wing church, at all. No. The message is that we need to reach deep down into our bag of tricks. Make sense?

[mondo joe]

75. And in "the fight of our lives" we want to be more namby pamby?

We tried that already and lost twice.

You say we have no power to change anyone but ourselves, but you're wrong.

The GOP didn't think that way - they changed the political landscape.

We can do the same. But we have to fight hard, we have to be strong in our convictions and we need to make THEM change.

[H2O Man]

84. No.

I think you are being "namby pamby" and I surely don't think it works.

You have some insight .... the republicans DID change the landscape .... but you do not understand how they did that. And your being stubborn in your refusal to consider other options is hardly a strength.

Our side does need to fight hard. But again, being stubborn and stupid should not be mistaken for a tough person's tactic. If you were really strong in your convictions, you would not rely upon weakness .... and being stubborn is a weakness. It is the most extreme form of "namby pamby" that there is.

We do not need to make them change. We merely need to win.

[mondo joe]

88. Your ad hominems are not a strategy

If all you can do is call me "weak" you're not worth the time.

Let's see some strategy, bucko.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

118. Funny you can call fellow dems names, but not others

Funny how you feel so free calling fellow dems names even while you plead for respect and understanding for others.

How about this: We can use the same names you use on on on other people.

So if we call creationists IGNORANT or WEAK we're only using YOUR standard.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

126. Let's add "stupid" to the list of names we can call people

Yes, yes, tell us to be more respectful while calling us "stupid".

That's a great lesson.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

136. Why can you call me stupid but I can't call creationists stupid?

Is this your way of leading by example?

[H2O Man]

151. Do you understand

that we are not engaged in a campaign here today? Neither of us will win an elective office because of this debate? Again: have you ever worked in a campaign? Behind closed doors, there is plenty of name-calling. But it is uncouth to let it spill out onto the street. I'm not in the least offended by your calling me names. That's fine. Don't take this personal. But use your head. This isn't a campaign debate.

[mondo joe]

153. No? You're not campaigning for a position?

I see - you support a duplicitous approach.

Condescend to your allies and call them names, but in campaign pretend to be respectful and considerate.

Yes - duplicity. A "Keep it in the family" approach, so favored by wife beaters everywhere.

[H2O Man]

163. I am able to

tell the difference between a campaign debate and a discussion on the internet. What office, if any, do you think that we are competing for?
I would hope we could be honest and open on here, without the need to have posts zapped.

Duplicious means the incorrect use of two or more tactics in a single action in political terms. This is not an election. This is a forum for discussing politics. I certainly do not speak the same to people here the same as I do in a campaign.

[mondo joe]

173. If duplicity works for you, go ahead. I'm not interested.

[H2O Man]

175. so what do you propose?

do you have an example of it being successful?

[mondo joe]

183. I propose a tact more like the only one that HAS been broadly successful

I propose a tact more like the only one that HAS been broadly successful in recent decades - stridency, strength, less worrying about offending, and a furious base.

We've lost two executive elections and countless legislative elections with the "oh we don't want to offend" approach while Repubs have won with a fired up base and the conviction to change the terms of the debate.

You want to keep trying the timid approch, go ahead. I'm not supporting it.

And if you really believe in what you say about respect and condescension, I suggest you start practicing it. People can smell a liar.

There's not a name you could call me that qwould impact me in the least, but I have no patience for hypocrites.

[H2O Man]

192. Who has it been successful for?

Can you name any democratic candidate of consequence that has won with your "Strident" approach?

I named the Jackson '88 campaign. Hardly timid.

Again, there is a huge difference between a discussion on a forum such as this, and a political campaign. I think you know that. And I'm surprised that you are so touchy about my taking a strident approach in this discussion. I could have sworn that was the approach you favored.

[arwalden]

196. Who Won The Last Election?

[H2O Man]

204. Who wants to know?

[arwalden]

208. You?

:eyes:

[H2O Man]

213. Nope.

I do understand that Bush was able to capitalize on the strident behavior of many on the left. I do not think the democratic party will be able to compete with their side in this area. And you haven't given any indication of exactly what area you think it would be beneficial to take up the tactics of the republicans.

[arwalden]

216. Wow.

>> I do understand that Bush was able to capitalize on the strident behavior of many on the left. <<

He was? Really?

[H2O Man]

218. You think not?

Seriously? Did you note an effort by the republicans to make the democrats seem out-of-touch with mainstream America?

[arwalden]

225. No I Did Not Notice That.

What are you talking about and what does this have to do with whether or not I should embrace, respect and validate the idiocy of the right wing zealots?

[H2O Man]

232. I have never said

that you should embrace, respect and validate the idiocy of the right wing zealots. No one has said that. You continue to resort to saying something that simply is not true. I have said that your choices are not limited to either embracing them or behaving like them. You have many other options.

Elections involved a large group of people who do not fit the definition of those right wing zealots. Unfortunately, many vote republican. The way to win elections includes reaching them, to show them that it is in their best interests to vote democratic. The best way to reach them is not with one of the two options you see. It is possible -- indeed necessary -- that we not see issues in the limited terms that our enemy defines them in.

[arwalden]

235. Feel Free To Do Those Things...

I choose to scorn, ridicule, and point out the idiocy and the hypocrisy of the zealot idiots. The "other options" you mention are not the options for me.

[H2O Man]

238. Fair enough.

I do recall that in my many boxing matches, it was always an advantage to have both a right hand and a left hand.

[mondo joe]

224. It's been successful for Bush, Bush, Reagan and a lot of the legislasture

I don't accept the two faced approach either.

You mean what you say or you don't.

You live your values or you don't.

[H2O Man]

234. If you think in terms

of Reagan and Bush as what defines our options, you will probably never get very far. The only two options are not to submit to the extreme right wing, or to copy their tactics. There are many different options.

No one on here has advocated showing respect to the extreme right. What is being proposed is an option for dealing with them that does not place group "c" firmly in their camp, by treating them with the same contempt one should have for group "b."

[salin]

76. here is the faulty logic

group bs assualt and overt contempt for group a has not made them look like big enough jerks to scare away group c - indeed group c seems rather impervious to group b's emboldened stridency. Thus how does group a counterreacting (with less venom, btw) suddenly make group b look "MORE" appealing when group b is more virulent than group a?

[mondo joe]

81. THANK YOU!!!!

It's astonishing that after the last decades anyone could think we'll draw more flies with honesy.

It's never been the case, and certainly not in recent years. It's counterintuitive, I'll grant, but increased stridency has been shown to be more appealing than increased thoughtfulness and consideration.

[H2O Man]

90. Can you give an example

of a democrat who has been elected president (including Gore and Kerry) by "increased stridency"? Or, just for illustration, the increasingly strident candidate that the democratic primaries? Or is what you are saying merely another version of a coward whistling as they walk past a cemetery?

[mondo joe]

91. Problem is you can't point to almost any dems winning office

Clinton won, but in a 3 way race in which Perot took more from the repubs than the dems.

But why limit it to president?

Why not look at the legislative branch? Because, in case you missed it, they've won that too.

[H2O Man]

112. Well there's one way

to avoid answering my question. Again, can you point out any example in the past 44 years where your tactics have been successful?

[mondo joe]

115. Where has stridency worked? Reagan, Bush, Bush, and a lot of

Where has stridency worked? Reagan, Bush, Bush, and a lot of the legislative branch.

Where has your method worked?

[H2O Man]

120. Well you just

seem to be unable to answer a simple question! I asked you about where your favorite tactics have worked for a democrat. You mentioned republicans. Now, can you mention where it has worked for a demcrat?

[mondo joe]

122. "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Try a fair question.

The fact is dems by and large aren't winning with ANY tactics.

So we can see that YOUR favored tactic is LOSING left and right.

But you just want to do the same thing again.

There's a medical term for that, y'know.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

134. Who here resorted to name calling? Who didn't answer? You.

"A funny thing: I have decades of experience in working with people who commit domestic abuse. And a common tactic is to avoid answering simple questions, to resort to name-calling, and to stubbornly stick to beliefs that don't seem to work."

Who avoided answering questions? You. I asked you which dems have won with your tactics.

Who called names? You. "Weak" "Stupid" "Ignorant".

Who sticks to beliefs that don't work? You. It wasn't enough for Gore and Kerry to get beat with your tactics - you want to do it again.

[H2O Man]

140. Actually, you didn't

ask that before I had asked you for a single example. But to answer you: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. I figured an expert like you would know about them. They were presidents.

Now, are you able to disinguish between our debating on a political forum for democrats, and an actual election? Have you ever taken part in a campaign? Because there is always some give-and-take, and even some name-calling. Only the weakest get cringy and whine. Toughen up. After all, wasn't it you that was just about the rougest, toughest democrat in the world?

[mondo joe]

Kennedy? Carter? THAT'S HOW YOU THINK WE'LL WIN NOW?

Good luck pal.

By the way, in which debate did Carter tell others they were ignorant or stupid, since that is your favored tactic?

[H2O Man]

158. do you understand

the difference between a public campaign and a discussion on a forum on the internet?

[mondo joe]

186. I understand that some people have no integrity

Just like the men who beat their wives with impunity but don't want the neighbors to know about it.

[H2O Man]

195. There you go again.

There are also mass murderers. However horrible they are, they have nothing to do with this discussion.

You haven't laid out an specific tactics. Saying being strident means nothing in and of itself. Can you give an example of when being more strident would be beneficial in a presidential election.

[arwalden]

152. Heh-heh...

I'm reminded of the mother who says "No child of mine is going to EVER get in that pool until he learns to swim!!"

We can't fly to the moon, it's never been done before!

[H2O Man]

167. swimming lessons

are best taught by those who know how to swim. A person can't teach that which they do not know. Democrats have won elections, and it might be best to look at what works. Heh-heh.

[arwalden]

168. A Peek At The Calender Wouldn't Hurt Either

Hint: It's not 1976 anymore.

[H2O Man]

171. And so

why don't you explain why what worked in the past won't work now? Explain your proposed tactics?

[arwalden]

176. I Have No "Tactic"... That's For The Candidates To Figure Out

I propose no "tactic"... there are strategists who are far more capable than I am of such intellectually lofty things. One thing's for certain... it works for them. It's a new day, a new world... 9-11 changed everything. Time to fight fire with fire.

But you, and others like you, will NEVER get me to have anything but utter contempt for the inhuman, vile, loathsome, FILTH and garbage on the right. Nor will you (or others like you) get me to cease, or soften how I express my condemnation of them and my derision of them. I will ridicule and scorn them at every opportunity. They deserve it.

[sonicx]

181. nice job...YOU just lost another election for us!!!!

And it hasn't even happened yet...

you liberal meanie!

:crazy:

[arwalden]

184. Whoopsie! My Bad! -- It's All My Fault!

:eyes:

[H2O Man]

202. No problem there.

At most, you have as much contempt for the right as do I. You could not possibly have more. For sake of discussion, let's agree that we both have an equal contempt for the right.

You have every right to ridicule and scorn them ate every opportunity. I do not deny that. I do think that it is possble to take their power away by using other tactics.

There are also many people who are in the middle. They are not deserving of hatred. They do make bad decisions -- voting republican -- because of ignorance and fear. Again, you have the right to insult them whenever the mood strikes you. But it won't help win elections.

[arwalden]

209. And Validating The Extreme Positions By "Respecting" Them

will win elections?

Stunning.

[H2O Man]

210. no one said that

except you, did they?

[arwalden]

212. Stunning.

[H2O Man]

217. can you find a single example

of anyone - especially me - saying that we should embrace or show a polite approval of the extreme right? That's not what was being proposed. Not at all. Rather than debate what was not being advocated, how about debating what was advocated?

[arwalden]

221. The Original Post Chides Those Who Ridicule The Zealot Idiots...

... and insists that we must respect them. They are not worthy of my respect, only my contempt, ridicule and scorn. Cope.

This is what I am debating... what are you debating.

[H2O Man]

228. That's not what I got from it.

And although it is what you are debating, it's not what I am debating. I mentioned the '88 campaign of Jesse Jackson, who is hardly a darling of the extreme right. Further, he is not a weak compromising democrat. I believe in moving the democratic party sharply to the left. That does not have to include offending the people in group "c."

The people in group "b" are able, at this point in time, to always manipulate the media to make those who react to their ill behavior look threatening and insulting to group "c." Their ability to misrepresent those reactions will always hurt democrats in the near future.

The original post is saying that there are options beyond either of the two you seem to be stuck on, which are either submit to the extreme right, or use their tactics. There are many other choices. That is what is being debated by both you and I.

[arwalden]

231. Oh indeed, there are a plethora of other "tactics"....

... this is the one that I choose. It makes the most sense to me. Fire with fire.

[H2O Man]

236. Then good luck to you.

There are certainly times when being strident is a good thing.

[H2O Man]

87. Well, that seems to be

something you need to think about. Because the problem isn't because group "b" doesn't understand; they get it, and are easily able to play the stubborn and the ignorant for fools. But just to show you the self-defeating behavior that is evident in your "question," how is it you plan to influence group "c"? Think about that, and maybe you will come to have enough insight that you need not be an easy target for group "b".

[salin]

93. that wasn't the point

the point was the analogy was faulty in logic - I wasn't proposing an alternative "lure". Frankly I am at a loss - pandering didn't work, high road didn't work, and fighting back hasn't worked.

I seem to think we need a very long-term strategy akin to the ground work of the rw in the 70s and 80s with their think tanks, media outlets and experts. They changed the beliefs of the public - through the reagan years supply side economics was viewed as a joke - even bushsr had to back track because of the problems being built up by the mounting deficits... but by bush1 - more folks were getting used to the idea and by bush2 supply-side is accepted by many as economic truth. How did that happen? By making writing and talking about it so mainstream that it became treated as truth. Same thing on a number of issues that they tirelessly promoted.

Long term effort - reclaiming the policy highroad - and reclaiming the public dialogue on issues. Not a one-cycle solution.

I am actually hopeful, though. From 2000 on - there has been a great deal of development of liberal/progressive organizations working together - from grassroots to think tanks to getting media airtime. Continued work on this front - helped along by more disasterous moves by the right (arrogance emboldens them which always gets them in trouble as they go too far - eventually the mess will be too big for group b to continue to rationalize/ignoer) - will start to change the public dialogue over time.

has nothing to do with group a being more polite than b or countering b.

[H2O Man]

119. It's exactly the point.

The logic isn't faulty. You don't get it. As you say, you are at a loss for understanding what will work. The "point" isn't for others to become more confused and at a loss for understanding that which is not very complicated. The "point" is for those who don't understand to take the time to learn, rather than spout off about something they don't get.

But, just to illustrate that further, if the model I have mentioned (though I do not take credit for it: it's something a person learns in introductory political science courses, and which is necessary to understand in order to take part in any serious campaign, no matter what party you support) doesn't work for you, and is just too stupid for a deep thinker like you, share some of your genius with us. Tell us exactly how you would improve on the model I mentioned? Help us to see the wisdom of your course!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

142. Emulating b's strategies that work. That's how. (nt)

[MadHound]

61. We have been playing nice for years, that's the problem

We allowed such radical believes to become mainstream. We've allowed the radical right into the house. We've allowed the domionists, the creationist, the whole strip of right wing religious fundementalism not only a place at the table, but the ability to take the whole table home with them, complete with the food set out.

The RW fundies had a concise, concerted plan. Start local, taking over school boards and city councils, graduate to state and national races. Appeal to hate, and bigotry, coded in phrases about culture, religion and family. Allowed to spout the most bizarre, hateful madness, because it was cloaked in Christianity. Take over the airwaves, slowly but surely. Sure, we all laughed at the antics of Falwell, Robertson, etc back in the late seventies, but the founders of these televangical empires turned that laughter into lucre. Crying mock turtle tears, they complained of how Christians were persecuted for their faith, when in truth, the RW fundies were simply being ridiculed for their gullibility.

During the Reagan years, having been a lynchpin in the Reagan revolution, RW Christianity went bigtime, and anytime they were criticized, they screamed about Christian persecution. It has become a mantra, one that is extremely successful. Lord knows, we don't want to piss off the members of this nations' dominant religion, so we pussyfoot around anything that smacks of religion or values, or culture. This leaves the field unchallenged, and the RW fundies came charging in. Dominating the airwaves, the mainstream media and now political discourse. Yet still people are advocating for us to treat these people with kid gloves? When are you folks going to learn. Treating them with kid gloves is what got us into this situation in the first place, it isn't going to get us out.

Now it has come down to this, the final assault on seperation of church and state. It is the RW fundies stated intent to remake our country in a theocratic mold, forcing their worldview upon everyone, persecuting anybody who doesn't believe as they believe. And yet we on the left continue to try and play nice with these folks. WAKE UP PEOPLE, WE ARE IN FOR THE FIGHT OF OUR LIVES, AND NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO PLAY NICE. You want the return of biblically mandated slavery? You want the persecution of those who are gay, aetheist, pagan, or otherwise ungodly in the fundies eyes? You want mandated, state sponsored religion? This and more is where we're heading, and if we try playing nice with these people, we're going to get steamrolled. Hell, witness the events of the past four years. The Democrats in power tried playing nice, and yet we've gotten our asses handed to us. A definiton of insanity is trying the same thing over and over, expecting a different result every time. That is what this call for playing nice is, insanity.

Now is the time for us to buckle down and fight, by fair means or foul. If you wish to retain America as it is now, a secular state open to all, you must fight for it by any means neccessary. Playing nice, being accomidating is only going to get your ass handed to you by a RW fundy who doesn't give a rat's ass about how he goes about it. If a smear, a poison pen letter to your boss will do it, then he will resort to those tactics. If it requires clubbing you over the head, or hacking into your bank account, he will do it. If it requires moving the media even further to the right, he will do it. He will stop at nothing, except by brute force, for that is all the RW fundy respects. And it is past time we started showing some.

People are all up in arms about how offended about the TO flap. Puhleeze people, wake up. This wasn't an offensive piece because of the skin shown, or the situation involved. That type of situation is repeated almost verbatim on a weekly basis on one soap or another. The real offense for most people who were truly offended(and I'm convinced that at least half those people who are saying they're offended are merely sheep, offeneded because others are saying they're offended, baa, baa) is the one difference between soaps and the TO skit. The color of the people involved. Sure, these people won't come out and say this, they've become much too savvy to display their racism openly. Instead they cloak it in the language of "values" and "culture wars" etc.

If you want more proof of what I say, if you want to see the game plan of the RW fundies before it completly unfolds, I suggest you read "Right-Wing Populism in America Too Close for Comfort" <http://www.guilford.com/cgi-bin/cartscript.cgi?page=politics/berlet.htm&cart_id=> by Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons. This is an essential book to read to understand where the RW has come from, and where it wants to go.

If we love our country, if we love our lifestyle, and the principles for which liberals stand for, we must not be accomidating or pussyfoot around these people simply because they cloak their naked aggression in religious clothes. We must instead take them on head on, and expose them for the power mad fascists that they are, exposing their blantant totalitarianism for all to see. Otherwise we are doomed before the fight begins. The time is short, so we must act now, not timidly, not respectfully, but with action and boldness to expose their hypocrisy for all to see.

[bunkerbuster1]

68. Fundy fundy fundy FUNDY!

Goatfucker goatfucker goatfucker GOATFUCKER!

I can say that. Y'know why? Because I was raised in a devoutly Christian, loving, liberal household. I revere the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am a husband and father first. I love my family and my neighbors, even the Republican ones.

I'm more than comfortable talking to Christian voters about their belief systems and treating them with respect. I intend to continue doing so in support of progressive causes.

But it's a two way street. If you're going to come out with both rhetorical guns blazing, and accuse me of being a traitor, a Communist, and an "anti-Christian bigot" (popular phrase here in Rednecklandia), dammit, I'm not going to play nice. And I'm sure as hell not going to tell anyone else that they have to either.

Face it, Pepperbelly--one of the most effective rhetorical devices out there is MOCKERY. Some who vote reThug and consider themselves Christian have to be morally offended by all the "Onward Christian Soldiers" bullshit. We have to hammer away at this, every damn day.

In the end, I do hear what you're saying, and there are those who would do well to at least count to, oh, two before spewing forth. But it isn't the spewing that lost us the last election. It's the fact that those GOATFUCKERS had the drop on us.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

78. Of course you're correct...Of course you'll be FLAMED!!!

This is a discussion I was having here yesterday (In this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2738965 ) concerning the hurricanes in Florida after someone had posted something like "Voters in Florida got what it deserved from God with the hurricanes"...

After that comment, I came back and said...

"I doubt He (God) sent the hurricanes...I'm quite sure it was just nature doing its thing"...






then someone else came back with...


"Why Does An All-Powerful Diety...

concern himself over such trivialities as sexual orientation? Seems a-bit beneath "the man" don't ya think? Hey, maybe "he" was too worried about gender issues to stop a red-state from being pummeled in the first place."






I followed that up with...

"You can mock Him all you want...

...but in the end, you'll either go to Him or you'll not be very happy...For eternity.

Your choice...I personally hope you chose well."






Someone who was NOT part of the discussion came back with...

"Oh GAWD!

:puke: Why don't you keep your religious 'Invisible Man in the sky' beliefs to yourself? mmmkay?"







Again...You'll get FLAMED and the kind of people I described above will be responsible for the Democratic Party looking bad in the future....They're as hateful as anyone they decry.

[arwalden]

85. Just A Reminder...

[mondo joe]

89. Why can't we show them more respect?

Why can't we just recognize their humanity?

I'm sure if we did, they'd vote democrat!

[arwalden]

92. Your Contempt For Them Is Being "Stubborn". You're WEAK!!

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

96. Right. Because people respect us when we roll over.

Bwah~!

What a lot more dems need to understand is that the things we value - thoughtfulness, consideration, empathy - are seen as weakness by a whole lot of Americans.

I wish more of us would read DON'T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT and recognize that much of America is in the Authoritarian Father mode.

Every time we approach them with an open hand it's just a confirmation to them that we are too weak and need to be conquered.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

100. Funny, you want to RESPECT the far right, but you feel free to insult

Funny, you want to RESPECT the far right, but you feel free to insult your fellow dems.

You remind me of the battered wife who misdirects her anger at her family instead of the abuser.

Try a little consistency in your approach.

[arwalden]

103. "You Just Don't Understand..."

"He really loves me... I know he does. He doesn't mean it. He can't help it. I love him so much."

[mondo joe]

108. Sometimes DU is like a LIFETIME movie starring Judith Light

And sometimes I want to turn to SPIKE TV.

[arwalden]

116. You Nut...

that's funny!

[H2O Man]

135. Both LIFETIME and SPIKE TV

are of value to those who live in a cinematic fantasy world.

[mondo joe]

137. How condescending. Another fine example.

We must not condescend to the electorate, nor call names. But we can do it to each other with impunity.

Nice example pal!

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

106. Who said anything about "Far Right"?

Like I said...Just forget it...

[mondo joe]

111. You mean creationists are not far right? Anti gay zealots aren't?

Why is it a problem to call pewople opposed to science idiots, but it's okay to tell your fellow dems they are "hate filled"?

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

138. Yes...That is exactly what I mean.

I have never, in my life, met ANYONE who believes "God hates fags" (Not that they don't exist...Of course they do). But, I have met many hundreds (Thousands?) of people who believe God created the Heaven and Earth.

Of course you knew that didn't you? And you also know that one can believe in God, believe he created the Heaven and Earth, and STILL believe in science? Of course you do.



Now...Feel free to keep calling these people "Idiots" (Many, MANY of them lifelong, good Democrats) if you like. Just don't expect me to condone it. Personally, I'm into WINNING!

[arwalden]

117. Too Late... You Can't Just Make Outrageous Personal Slams...

... then say "forget it" as if nothing happened.

[arwalden]

101. Nice, 'RealityNotTinFoil'... real nice.

Better save your personal attacks for the real enemy.

[mondo joe]

102. Notice the same people who want us to respect repigs can't respect

Notice the same people who want us to respect repigs can't respect their fellow dems?

If you disagree you are "filled with hate".

If you are enraged you're "weak".

A shame they can't show some of the same spleen against the actual opposition.

[arwalden]

114. This Is Nothing New...

... but I refuse to be a scapegoat.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

110. Yes, it's real nice! And also something we should follow...

...if we want to be taken seriously. Don't you agree?

[mondo joe]

113. You get taken seriously when you tell people they're filled with hate?

How does that work exactly?

[arwalden]

121. Here's The Quote

>> Oh, just forget it. You're just like the people who would post that crap and condemn all of us with it. Enjoy your hate. <<

It starts off with "forget it"... as if throwing up both hands and walking away from the discussion. THEN... it's immediately followed with the personal slam.

Next, when you point out what's what and call it for what it is, the reply is (essentially)... "I sa-a-aid FORGET IT!"

[mondo joe]

123. My q: Why is it okay to tell US we're filled with hate, but not...

My question: Why is it okay to tell US we're filled with hate, but not say the same to creationists, anti gay zealots and so on?

Funny double standard.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

128. And I'll repeat it...

Anyone who uses those people who believe things such as "God Hates Fags" as an example of the religious is JUST AS BAD as any idiot on the right who uses people who believe things such as "We support our troops when they shoot their leaders" as an example of anti-war protestors.

Forget them all...They're all full of hate. May they all enjoy their hatred.


Now...DEAL with it!!! Or don't...I don't really care.

[mondo joe]

131. Wait, now you're calling people "idiots" and "hateful" in the

Wait now you're calling people "idiots" and "hateful" in the thread in which you want us to show more respect?

Nice.

Do you beat your kids to show them hitting is unacceptable?

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

139. So...You're a child now?

You're saying I need to speak to you as a child?? Is that it???

Or maybe...Just MAYBE, you're twisting my words in a feeble attempt at making me look like I'm doing something I clearly not?


You know the answer.

[mondo joe]

141. No, I'm just a rational adult trying to discern a position from you

Apparently it's that we must be respectful of the electorate but we can call each other names and condescend.

Is that it?

If not, please clarify.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

146. Read my first post. It's clear.

Then read my follow-up to the person who posted the "God hates fags" picture. It's clear.

Then stop playing games.

[mondo joe]

147. Please, please, please simply state your position in a sentence or 2

I really want to see the position that calls for respect for others but accomodates name calling and condescension when it suits you.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

150. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2745886&mesg_id=2746386&page=

[mondo joe]

155. Again, please simply state your position in a sentence or two.

Is it hard to do that?

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

159. I'm not going to play your game...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2745886&mesg_id=2746530&page=

[arwalden]

161. No... Just Keep Linking To Your Previous Personal Attack

we can see that, RNTF.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

166. Yes...My "Personal Attack"...

...On IDIOTS who state things like "God Hates Fags" and "We support our troops when they shoot their leaders"...Is that the one you're having such a hard time coming to terms with??

Is that it? Or, like I've been saying...You're just playing games?


But in case you're not playing games, feel free to cry for those idiots.

[arwalden]

170. That's Not What You Said...

There's nothing for me to "come to terms with"... your meaning was quite clear. Here's what you said in post 128.

>> Anyone who uses those people who believe things such as "God Hates Fags" as an example of the religious is JUST AS BAD as any idiot on the right who uses people who believe things such as "We support our troops when they shoot their leaders" as an example of anti-war protestors. <<

Well, it was *I* who used those people as an example of religious hate and bigotry... so (as you point out) I'm just as bad as the idiot on the religious right.

You're calling me an idiot. I get it. Trust me... I understand fully. No need to explain away your personal slams as meaning something ELSE other than what you plainly meant it to be.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

174. Again...

...As I've stated in this thread NUMEROUS, NUMEROUS TIMES, I stand by my comment...

"Anyone who uses those people who believe things such as "God Hates Fags" as an example of the religious is JUST AS BAD as any idiot on the right who uses people who believe things such as "We support our troops when they shoot their leaders" as an example of anti-war protestors."


It's pretty simple to understand, really.

[arwalden]

177. Okay... So You Stand By Your Personal Attack Of Me. -- I Get It.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

182. If that's what you want to call it, fine.

I was pretty clear.

[mondo joe]

180. Here, I'll show you how easy it is to state a position

My position: Democrats have for too long tried to be respectful, considerate and inoffensive, which has resulted in significant electoral losses. As counterintuitive as this may seem to us, these very values mark us as weak, and even despicable, to many Americans who respond better to stridency, strength and a juggernaut-like determination.

[PassingFair]

199. No one needs to twist your words...

We're all going to hell, remember. Sweet dreams, special, all-loving, saved one.

[arwalden]

144. Oh Dear, RealityNotTinFoil...

>> Anyone who uses those people who believe things such as "God Hates Fags" as an example of the religious is JUST AS BAD as any idiot on the right who uses people who believe things such as "We support our troops when they shoot their leaders" as an example of anti-war protestors. <<

Well... since *I'M* the only one in this thread who has used the "God Hates Fags" folks as an example of their hatred... you're CLEARLY referring to me. (Duh!)

And your example that directly compares *me* to idiots who advocate traitorous violence is a personal attack.

You may have changed your name from FlorenceDollar... but that's the only thing that's changed.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

148. If the shoe fits...

...I stand by my comparison.

[arwalden]

179. Your Comparison Is A Personal Attack.

How proud you must be!

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

185. Geeze man...Enough with the WHINING!!!

It's embarrassing!

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

194. Reality Not Tin Foil... That's Not Nice.

[Name removed]

198. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

201. That's Not Nice Either

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

214. Heh-heh-heh...

[Name removed]

219. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

237. Heh-heh...

[mondo joe]

223. THis doesn't qualify?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2738965#2743923

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

227. Sorry - by the capitalized "Him" you must have meant Geraldo Rivera.

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

233. That's Still Not Being Very Nice, RNTF.

[arwalden]

229. Ah ha... so it seems you are NOT a liar after all.

Oh... I suppose if someone wants to pick-nits, then technically she said "... go to Him" (with a capital-H) but YOU ARE CORRECT... the meaning is clear:

"Accept Jesus or you will be sorry for eternity."

[Red State Rebel]

94. You are so right - it's a shame not many on here will listen.

I hate seeing so many of us become the very things we despise.

[veracity]

206. Falling into the trap...

Sad. Someone makes a really baseless accusation, and you not only fall for it, you apologize for its credibility. I object strongly and strenuously to the suggestion that the democrats lost because they ridiculed anyone. On the contrary, they bent over backwards....far to much IMO.....to be civil and polite and not attack anyone's beliefs.

HOW ABOUT SOME EVIDENCE OF YOUR ACCUSATION? Show me where anyone in the campaign ever, ever, publicly insulted the right wing extremists who want to foist their views on the entire nation? NOT doing so might have cost us the election. Publicly exposing the hypocrisy, the unAmerican, and the unConstitutional goals of the right SHOULD have been attacked, and was not.

[secedeeconomically]

95. WRONG

This idea that need to pacify and "understand" the other side is a bunch of bullshit. They are lost and any attempt to bring them back will be futile. Get a grip on reality.

[progressoid]

105. Plus, we are more superior n/t

[w4rma]

98. I think it's slightly more complicated, although you are, in part, correct

Respect their lifestyle. Respect their culture.

I've seen alot of mockery of Mel Gibson's lifestyle where his wife seems to like living "barefoot and pregnant". They have like 7 or 8 children or something. Just respect it. You don't and shouldn't have to live that way, but just treat it as another culture that should be allowed a place in America's multi-cultural society.

Respect the lifestyle and culture of folks who work all week and go to church on Sunday and whose life revolves around the church and it's activities. Respect the lifestyle and culture of folks who live in trailer parks, don't call them trailertrash or whitetrash. Don't mock or ridicule gay folks for their culture and lifestyle. Don't mock or ridicule vegans, or American Indians or whomever for their culture and lifestyle. Respect the lifestyle and culture of all these folks, who are not trampling anyones rights, and many many more cultures and lifestyles. There is no reason or need to mock and ridicule folks who live in ways that may seem strange to some. Remember that they think all other lifestyles and cultures are strange and wierd, also. Which brings me to the second point.

Do not underestimate mock and ridicule as a weapon.

When something a group is pushing onto others through law is a major problem then attack that policy. Attack that specific issue with *everything*. Someone thinks its a right to dump chemicals into your city's water and/or air? Go balistic. Someone thinks it should be a right to drive under the influence of something mind altering? Go balistic. Someone thinks that folks within another culture should die or be disrespected (i.e. gays, Jews, Buddists, Muslims, Christians, militia gun-owners, vegans)? Go balistic. Somone thinks that it is good that it is much much harder for a familiy with one working parent to raise their familiy? Go balistic and mock those beliefs. Someone thinks price gouging, poor/dangerous working conditions and con-artistry is good? Go balistic. Someone thinks that its fine that we should support China's economy and job growth more than our own? Go balistic.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

188. I don't give a shit what Mel Gibson...

does or how he acts in his personal life. He can fucking populate Australia with is prodgeny for all I care, think his wife is going to hell, and make whatever "christian" porn movies he wants to. It's his right to do so, and it's my right to think he's nuts for it. And I can do both things at once -- think he's nuts AND make no attempt to make him run his life a differant way.

But, the SECOND he gets on television and tells California voters like me NOT to vote for stem cell research because HIS religious views don't allow for it, I WILL GO BALISTIC.

And that is the fundamental problem.

I am willing to let him, and other RW "christian" nuts have their "lifestyles and cultures", but they are unwilling to do the same for me.

[sandnsea]

143. Defining our own values

The far left needs to understand they are the face of the liberals that Republicans are taught to hate. So there would be some value in putting a better foot forward. It's just a nipple or a back isn't the point; drawing lines of acceptable behavior is the point. It would be nice if the left talked about some lines of public behavior, how far is too far to them? If it's something more than public sex, that would be nice to know.

Saying we've got other values is helpful too, but again, what are the lines. Gay marriage to alot of people means public sex because that's the face of the gay community alot of people see. And heaven forbid you mention that because you get blasted out of the water. I know, I have and was called a prude.

But there's another line and that's the line between defining values and listening; and giving validity to stupidity by having a serious debate. There's a difference between scientific theory and cockamamie theory and there doesn't appear to be any other way to say it so that people can hear. Seems to me teachers and scientists have tried to argue creationist theory along intellectual lines and got nowhere. Because the cretins, as it were, just aren't educated and just don't get it. Cockamamie theory, exposed through humor, they just might get that. Or at least those who aren't fully indoctrinated will get it and that's all we need.

[sonicx]

154. Gay marriage...

everytime i heard debates about gay marriage, i hear the pro-side talk about loving couples that just wanting to be treated equally and have the same rights.

I've never heard anyone bring up public sex, and i have no idea why anyone would think gay marriage would invite public sex...:crazy:

so when activists talk about gay marriage, should they also say "listen...we don't wanna fuck in the streets or anything..."

:crazy:

[sandnsea]

193. Listen or ridicule

Choice is yours.

I'm just trying to tell you what I've heard people say. I can roll my eyes at them and call them stupid fucking idiots, which I've done, but I don't think that changes anything.

It isn't enough to talk about loving couples, people have to SEE the loving couples. At least as often as they see gay pride parades.

[sonicx]

203. i never ridicule...

in people's faces. I never hear gay artivists call people 'idiots' to people's faces or in the media....

Here, i joke around. Is DU not safe anymore to make jokes?

BTW, the reason you don't see the loving couples is cuz the TV doesn't want you to. Who runs the TV? The people who like sensational trials and titshots. Pro-gay marriage rallies only get coverage in liberal outlets. Same with gay couples.

[sandnsea]

207. Yes you can make jokes

You'd generally have to hit me with a sledge hammer to offend me. Listen or ridicule was as much a joke back at you.

The gay community has money. PSA's. It's necessary to counter what's out there now. And when gay activists do the political news circuit, go as couples. There's ways.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

145. If virulency was a problem...

...Ann Coulter alone would have lost the election for *.

Why ISN'T it a problem for THEM?

[sonicx]

149. If this is THE reason we lost...we'll never win again...

cuz both sides will never stop making fun of each other. Even if everyone at DU promised to stop, some mean old liberal out there will do it.

And if every liberal stopped, we'll be punching bags for the Right forever, and continue to lose.

oh well. canada here i come! :crazy:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

156. But they are hillbillies, cretins and goatfuckers

The real reason we lost is because we got 136,000 less votes in Ohio than did Bush. PB, I respect you, but if this were Germany in the 30's would we be castigating the rational people simply because a master manipulator with an all too congenial press (Goebbels)managed to manipulate his way to the top? I would hope not.

We are the reason we lost..but it is because they are toxic in their outrage and we get depressed and sit around contemplating our navel and the reason we lost.

If you recall, the morning after the election, Skinner had a thread and we were all ready to go to Ohio..THEN..we backed off..THAT IS THE REASON WE LOST.

[Carson]

157. Excellent post

And it's something I've been saying since joining DU.

Thanks!

[UdoKier]

165. ZZZZZZZZZ.....

This is the same argument, slightly rephrased that we've seen OVER and OVER since this election.

I call BS. Most of us do not mock religious nuts. In fact, we tiptoe around them at family gatherings, bow our heads to say grace with them, and generally humor their ridiculous beliefs.

This is the one place where we can be free to call mumbo-jumbo exactly what it is, and I for one am not about to start pretending it's something worthy of discussion in a reality-based community.

As for the "naked back", there was some puritanism there, but it was more about racism than anything else.

If these people had their way, we'd spend ALL our time discussing trivialties like the NFL ad, because it's TITILLATING. Hell' that's why they could never get enough of Monica. They can be titillated and self-righteous at the same time.

I don't want all this society's precious time wasted discussion silly little TV ads when social security is being dismantled, along with the rest of what's left of the New Deal, we are facing a debt apocalypse with ever-increasing numbers of jobs going away. Hell no. We need to change the subject back to RELEVANT issues, and forcefully so.

I would suggest that every time an acquaintance brings up the NFL back or the Artest fight or Scott Peterson or any other irrelevant pop-culture crap, say - "I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but are you aware that (insert relevant, current issue)? We should not be participating in the dumbing down of this country. By doing so, we are speeding it on its way to destruction.

[bloom]

169. I think the less people don't speak out about Fundamentalists

the worse it will be.

I don't see it as a good thing for death cults to prosper while people say nothing.

The Creationists have "Grad schools" where people waste their lives deluding themselves and learning to delude others more effectively. I think people have a duty to call them on it.



Kristof has a great column today:

Apocalypse (Almost) Now
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: November 24, 2004

If America's secular liberals think they have it rough now, just wait till the Second Coming.

The "Left Behind" series, the best-selling novels for adults in the U.S., enthusiastically depict Jesus returning to slaughter everyone who is not a born-again Christian. The world's Hindus, Muslims, Jews and agnostics, along with many Catholics and Unitarians, are heaved into everlasting fire: "Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and . . . they tumbled in, howling and screeching."

Gosh, what an uplifting scene!

If Saudi Arabians wrote an Islamic version of this series, we would furiously demand that sensible Muslims repudiate such hatemongering. We should hold ourselves to the same standard.

Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, the co-authors of the series, have both e-mailed me (after I wrote about the "Left Behind" series in July) to protest that their books do not "celebrate" the slaughter of non-Christians but simply present the painful reality of Scripture.

"We can't read it some other way just because it sounds exclusivistic and not currently politically correct," Mr. Jenkins said in an e-mail. "That's our crucible, an offensive and divisive message in an age of plurality and tolerance."

Silly me. I'd forgotten the passage in the Bible about how Jesus intends to roast everyone from the good Samaritan to Gandhi in everlasting fire, simply because they weren't born-again Christians.<more>

--------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/24/opinion/24kristof.html?th

on edit: link

[fujiyama]

172. Sorry

I usually like your posts but please don't lecture us.

If you want to respect the likes of Robertson and Falwell feel free. I have no respect for these theocratic fascists.

And yes, this board shouldpartly be used for derision and disgust. We have no other place to do this. Many of us live in red areas where we can't even discuss these things with anyone.

I'm not advocating doing this is public, and I really have no idea what public mockery your talking about. I'm not sure if you remember but Kerry never even aired negative ads. The other side has mocked us as being trairors. It was being all nice that caused us to lose.

[veracity]

200. Nonsense......utter nonsense...!!!

The religious right is NOT mocked for its beliefs. The true liberal attitude is one that doesn't give a hoot what the right believes. You can worship a lamp and get respect, if that's your thing. WE (probably not YOU), but the generic WE - object to the imposition of religious beliefs and myths and bigotry and repression and sexual hangups on the rest of us through GOVERNMENTAL LEGISLATION. Get that? You really don't.

[samtob]

205. Very well stated.

One very important point you made that seems to have been lost to many is in the very first sentence.

"How many of you have ever heard the Religious Right (RR) claim that they are mocked for their religion or their beliefs? I certainly have."

The "evangelicals" that typically do not vote, who turned the tide this election are Christians. Christians are taught to expect persecution due to their faith, and to rise above it, face it head on. Calling them stupid, bigots, hateful etc, does nothing but strengthen their resolve and encourage them to reach out to more people.

No one will persuade any of these individuals that the democratic party actually fits their beliefs more so than the party they voted for this year by demonizing them and calling them ignorant.

If you think of this way;
While fund raising for charity, if you call upon a wealthy business owner, call him a greedy pig who takes advantage of his laborers, you can not expect him to happily contribute to your cause now can you?

[Pithlet]

220. Some ideas ARE worthy of ridicule

Those who would push creationism onto the public schools will never vote for our side. They SHOULD be laughed out of the boardroom when they propose it. Because it is ridiculous! Not their belief in creationism, but their insistence that it is a science and should be taught in our public schools as such, when the public schools are supposed to be neutral. Separation of Church and State, and all that.

I said it elsewhere in this thread. I'm tired of the calls to pander for votes we will never get. It only hurts our cause. I will not sit idly by and "respect" the views of those who want to throw out science and replace it with their religion in my kids' schools. Bullshit. I will not.

No more calls for pandering. No more wailing and gnashing of teeth over votes we never had in the first place. And no more respect for views that deserve none. Bigotry and dissolution of the separation of Church and State do not deserve respect. They are ideals that need to be fought, and fought effectively.

[alarimer]

222. You make some good pointe BUT

Aren't we the ones always having to make concessions and be "nice". Democrats and liberals in general are way more tolerant than any member of the religious right any day of the week. If they cannot take a little name-calling, then they shouldn't call us names either. But they won't stop doing that. What they do is far worse than a little mockery. They equate liberals with Satan so why should we be tolerant of their wishes? The right wing were the ones that started the demonization in the first place. They have almost all of the TV news channels as well as most of talk radio. As far as I am concerned they are puritans and hypocrites. What the right does very successfully (see Mark Crispin Miller's Cruel and Unusual) is project their own failings onto liberals. they are the ones who really hate, not us. So we shouldn't fall into that trap anymore.

[RetroLounge]

226. Uhm, no thank you, but feel free to do what you like

I for one will mock them to their fucking metaphoric graves.

RL

[msmcghee]

239. I disagree completely . .

Many liberals like you, being true to form, search for the answer to the "where did I go wrong" question. It is natural for liberals to look to "process" rather than more fundamental factors. In your case you are saying that if we just treated them more respectfully they'd like us and vote for our wonderful candidates.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

We are being swept along on a huge tide of reformation. Because we are in it we don't see it.

This has happened periodically in all major civilizations throughout human history. During these periods, religious ideology (but sometimes political or a combination) infects the minds of millions of otherwise decent humans.

This feeds upon itself until eventually a tipping point is reached and they start killing their perceived "enemies" otherwise known as genocide or fratricide or religious purification.

It ends only after so many are killed and so much unhappiness is visited upon humanity that they finally tire of it.

That allows a new age of enlightenment to proceed. These are the periods when inventions, medicine and the arts flourish - and when freedoms are given to those who lacked them in the past

We can not stop this. If we humor them they will see it as our weakness and our depravity. If we fight them they will see it as justification to destroy us. Whatever we do, it will only enrage them further. Their wealth and status of their key leaders now depends on an ever escalating war against liberals and our values. They will not turn away from that no matter what we do.

There is nothing we can do about the thousands of innocent humans that are being killed today in the beginning skirmishes of this war of ideology - or the many more millions of innocent humans that are about to die horrible deaths in this world. But at least we can stick to our principles and call out the lies where we find them. If their stupidy deserves ridicule - I will not hesitate.

When it's all over, and knowing now that there's not much we can do to prevent it - do you want to be remembered as "going along to get along", trying to convince them that you're a "good Jew" - or are you at least willing to tell the truth to the destructive ideological filth and lies they are spreading.

Liberal values are under attack. Some few liberals will react to that by mocking the fundies. It may be thoughtless but so what. When people are attacked that's what they will do. Most liberals don't do that anyway. We just take it and shake our heads and wonder where we went wrong. We didn't go wrong - they did.

Stand up for what you believe. That's all you've got.

[Moderator]

240. Locking

Too many flames