You must be evil or stupid to vote republican...

[TN al]

...but my wife won't let me say this outside of her company. She says it is hardly likely to engender converts. I say it is because they are comfortable in their ignorance and I want to make them uncomfortable. Perhaps "evil or stupid" should be our mantra. What are your thoughts on the matter.

I am also willing to entertain points that the original premise is flawed and you don't have to be evil or stupid to vote republican but you will have a great deal of convincing to do. Be forewarned, however, that I consider selfishness to be both evil and stupid.

[DireStrike]

1. Your wife is right

Although I agree with and have independently arrived at your conclusion, in those exact words.

[RubyDuby in GA]

2. No arguments here

I can't believe your wife won't let you say this outside her company. Acts like she doesn't trust you or something..... :shrug:

[tk2kewl]

3. maybe "evil or gullible"

or "evil or ignorant" (don't know)
or "evil or lazy" (don't bother to find out)

not necessarily "stupid"

[amazona]

4. I agree with you

I think your wife's premise is flawed, actually. The GOP has claimed that Democrats are evil or stupid for years, and it does win converts, because many people are susceptible to peer pressure and just want to go along to get along with whatever they perceive to be the popular idea of the day. It won't win converts among, say, people who are naturally contrary, but we contrarians are the minority in any population anyway. If peer pressure didn't work, what teen-ager would smoke tobacco?

[RUDUing2]

5. sure go ahead a use it if your goal is to make sure that the repubs

continue to win elections. If however your goal is to defeat the repubs it isn't something you should be saying. Telling someone that they are stupid or evil because of how they vote wont do anything except turn them against you. Now if you want to say republican policy and the republican platform is stupid and evil that is the correct way to go about it.

Its your choice though. If you want to use it, use it...but don't be surprised and please accept some of the responsibility when they continue voting repub and when repubs keep winning the elections.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. And, You're Proof Of That Assertion Is What, Again?

We have avoided it like the plague for 25 years, and see where it's gotten us?

The repubs managed to turn "liberal" into an epithet, and see where it's gotten them?

Your proposal fails the logic test.
The Professor

[RUDUing2]

35. my proof is from family and friends and from living in a state that

is completely red...and the reasons given by them as to why they vote repub...one of the main reasons is that the dems and libs are condescending towards them and treat them as if they are stupid, etc..

[ProfessorGAC]

37. Not Exactly A Breathtaking Dataset

So that's what, 20 out of 59 million? I'm a scientist. You'll have to do better than that.
The Professor

[RUDUing2]

39. the proof is all the moderates who voted for bush instead of kerry...

setting ourselves up as intellectually superior doesn't work...we have to learn how to connect to those moderates.

The dems are viewed as snobs..the repubs have convinced the mods that they are the *party of the people*...can't tell you how many people I have heard say they believe bush would have a beer with them in a bar...but gore and kerry would not even talk w/them...in actuallity the reverse is most likely true...but that doesn't matter..perception is everything..and the perception of mr. and mrs. middle america is that dems/libs are a bunch of snobs who think they are stupid rednecks...whereas the repubs *understand* them...and unless we change that perception they are going continue voting repub (and I am not talking fundies..I am talking average americans)...maybe because you are in the area of science instead of humanities you are not understanding the way this mindset works..and that is part of the problem...you cant look at this from a logical standpoint..you have to look at it from an illogical messily emotional one..and figure out what can be done on that level...and insults is not going to help..they will only cause more damage...

but hey its your choice...I just want to make sure the repubs get out of power..making myself feel better (or smarter, or morally superior, etc) is not as important as figuring out how to win back mr. and mrs. middle america and reclaim the government/country from the fundies...

[ProfessorGAC]

43. Still Fails The Logic Test

You're suggestion is EXACTLY what the dems have been doing since 1979. EXACTLY! Yet, you suggest that a more aggressive approach would be disasterous. The "kindler, gentler than them" approach has resulted in this mess.

Your logic doesn't succeed.
The Professor

[RUDUing2]

56. once again you can not apply *logic* to humans..doesn't work..

we are not in the main *logical* creatures..

As a scientist..you have the opportunity to work w/two other scientist..

One continually tells you how stupid you are, the other explains to you without insults why your hypothesis is flawed. Both are equally brilliant and respected. Both want to work with you and have your name along w/theirs on the resulting paper. Which one do you chose to work with?

[ProfessorGAC]

62. My Work Stands For Itself

I don't understand this hypersensitivty. Why would i care which one thinks what if they both feel a need to work with me? Obviously, my work stands on its own, or neither would want me involved.

Once again, it's a hypothetical in search of a point. A more direct answer would be: The one who calls me stupid, but wants to work with me, is obviously overrespected and dumber than dirt. So, i don't want to work with him, but not because of his name calling. It's because he's ridiculing me while admitting he needs my expertise. Therefore, the name calling is meaningles, and he's just a jerk. No truth. Just stupidity. On HIS part.

You still haven't addressed the central question: What is different about what you're suggesting than what the dems have been doing since Carter? The dems have been trying to "stay above it all" as the repubs went down into the mud. That has worked for us, how?
The Professor

[tx_dem41]

65. And your statements like "Drop Dead" ...

speak volumes as well! Don't shortchange yourself.

[ProfessorGAC]

71. You Started That

Try to remember that you condescended to ME! If you don't know how, then go back and read the posts.
The Professor

[tx_dem41]

72. Never once did I make a threat to you. n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

76. You Need To Look Up Threat

I don't think you know what that means. You instigated this by impugning my credentials. I don't take that from anybody, especially not an anonymous sceenname.
The Professor

[tx_dem41]

81. Actually, you are confusing me with another poster......

I was acknowledging the fact that my post did not prove the point either. I am a "scientist" as well, and I know about the scientific process. I put "scientist" in quotes because it is such a generic term that covers a vast array of fields.

[ProfessorGAC]

84. Chemistry, Mathematics, Economics

Advanced degrees in all three. Does that help you better understand my perspectives? Minor anecdotal evidence is almost meaningless to me, because in quantum chemistry there are no anecdotal data, in mathematics you can't equate anecdotes, and in economics, the view has to be so broad as to make anecdotal evidence, even if 100% true, useless to the understanding of the systemic behaviors.

Hence, anecdotal data doesn't work for me, and this electoral and human science condition doesn't lend itself to analysis in the micro, only the broad strokes.
The Professor

[tx_dem41]

87. And, anecdotal evidence shouldn't be used to prove a point....

as I stated in my controversial post. But, as another poster stated, we are trying to apply logical reasoning to a human reaction. I'm not sure you can. And, thus, you will always win the argument that you set up (as you are aware). Thus, we have to make judgments based on personal experiences. I stated mine, and you are free to tell me my judgment is wrong.

[RUDUing2]

67. you didn't answer my question. You tried to change it around to

invalidate it, but didn't answer it.

Both are equally smart and respected. One continually calls you stupid the other doesnt. Which one will you chose to work with?

The dems have fallen into the habit of responding to mudslinging and half truths with intellectual superiority. We either ignore the mudslinging or we imply that anyone who believes it is an ignoramus.

Neither works.

We shouldn't ignore it, but we also can not respond by insulting the intelligence or morals of the other side.

We need to learn the art of the soundbite. Instead of long winded explanations and an overabundance of facts..we need to learn to keep our retorts short and sweet..

The repubs have this down to an art..and it has worked.

People don't want facts..they want something they can easily understand.

The repubs say "liberals want to take away your guns" and we respond w/a long treatise on the second ammendment...instead we need to simply respond..conserves are for irresponsible gun owners..dems want responsible gun owners.

repubs say "liberals promote promiscuous sex" we respond w/a long winded rant about abortion, aids, etc..we simply need to respond "repubs support irresponsible sexual activity, liberals support teaching responsible sexual activity"...

repubs say "liberals are immoral"..we go into long discourse about what morals are...our response should be "libs think everyone should be morally responsible"...

make the dems/libs the party of personal responsibility...

[ProfessorGAC]

75. I Didn't Ignore The Question

I answered it exactly as you posed it. As you posed it, they both need me. As you posed it, one of them calls me stupid. I CAN'T be stupid if he needs me. So, obviously he's the one who is the fool. Why would i want to work with a fool? Thus the point is moot.

Besides, at no time, did i say Bush voters were all stupid. Many of them are fearful. Likely unreasonably so, but fearful, just the same. Others are two dimensional thinkers trapped in their own little microcosm and incapable of seeing that the country doesn't work for anyone if it's leaving large numbers behind. The latter category is either stupid, ignorant, or so selfish that they don't care. I have no respect for any of those options, and i won't pretend to. In addition, with those motivations, those aren't minds that will be changed.

The ones with unrealistic fears can be swayed, but i never suggested that we insult them for their choices. Just convince them they are fearful for nothing and that their choice isn't making the problem go away.

The ones who voted Bush on "moral values" i also believe are a lost cause. They dream of a "good old days" when Beaver and Wally ate dinner with Ward and June, and black people sat at the back of the bus, and around 25% of all children below the Mason-Dixon line went to bed HUNGRY EVERYNIGHT! But, as long as they don't see a bare breast or a bare behind, or a naked actress jumping into the arms of a (gasp!) black man, they are ok. Well, they're not ok by me. And, i'm not even going to pretend that they can be made to see the light. They vote on morals, and then they vote for a guy who starts illegal wars, cuts education funding and social programs, and is spending their grandchildrens' future. Nothing moral at all in that. Hence, i don't want them on our side, because they're WRONG, and they aren't going to change their mind anyway.

So, i think you're barking at the wrong guy. My intent is to turn the word CONSERVATIVE into the equivalent of RADICAL, or LUNATIC FRINGE. If you think that's not playing nice enough, that's fine. You do it your way, and i'll do it mine.

I'm not trying to make converts. I'm not a missionary. I'm hopeful that if we call a spade a spade, the middle will see the TRUTH. That's the most important thing, not the methodology.
The Professor

[RUDUing2]

90. I disagree I think methodology and how we frame our answers is what is

important.

I agree we need to turn the word conservative into a dirty word..but I don't think you are going to do that by calling people who voted repub. evil and stupid.

Take a note from the repubs..they don't say if *you* vote democrat *you* are immoral and stupid. They say liberals are immoral and stupid..they keep it on a non-personal level..(yes it means the same, but it isn't percieved the same)

So say *republicans are stupid and evil* but don't say *if YOU vote republican YOU are stupid and evil*...because then it becomes a personal attack, and nobody responds positively when they think they are being personally attacked.

[the other rick]

40. This is a fine example of

what the previous poster is talking about, isn't it? He mentions anecdotal evidence of why he has the concerns expressed and the response is rather acidic. Further, the interjection of personal credentials ('scientist', 'professor')seems gratuitous and aimed at implying that the professor is somehow superior.

Listen, surveys support the notion that conservatives, especially lower-middle class and middle-middle class conservatives, feel that they are 'looked down on', 'hated', and 'ignored' by liberal leaders. (university of Michigan has some excellent surveys on this).

[leesa]

42. Well, improve your intellectualism instead of whining about it

This nonsense about what liberals do to the poor Republicans is pure BS and is propaganda put out by the RW media...and you bought it.

[tx_dem41]

47. Its amazing how some people think treating potential voters with...

condescension and acidic comments is going to get them anywhere? Are you people like that in every situation in life?

I have been constantly amazed recently, that fellow Democrats think the way to win is to act like asses. I have seen people talk about willingly losing loved ones over politics. My goodness, these are your loved ones, and in some cases you call them such hateful names! If that's what politics is about to you, then be prepared to be angry and hateful and lonely your whole life. Just remember, to lead people, you need to offer a positive vision, not negative tripe that belittles them.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. Another Question To You

Where was i condescending? I asked a question for proof of an assertion that condescending liberals are the reason why people voted for Bush. Simple question.

What i got in reply was that the people ONE poster knew told him that. So, i was underwhelmed by the evidence that led to the conclusion. Which was sort of my original point. There is NO evidence that anyone who voted for Bush did so because liberals are mean to them. None!

The other part of my point was completely ignored. So, i'm supposed to be gratified about that?

I haven't belittled anybody here. I belittled a conclusion drawn on extremely limited data that must be extrapolated to 59 million americans.

I just don't agree with the play nice strategy. That's what we've been doing, and it seems ridiculous to continue a strategy that has failed us for 25 years.
The Professor

[tx_dem41]

55. I wasn't talking about any post, when I mentioned condescension...

I was talking about the condescension required to call someone stupid and evil.

And, on the "assertion" and "proof" issue, I am not trying to prove that Bush voters were for Bush because Liberals were mean to them. I only care about this: Will someone vote my way, if I call them "stupid" and "evil"? Now, how you prove that, I don't know short of exit polling. But, I would take the odds that they won't. Want to bet?

[ProfessorGAC]

61. More Ennui

I betting that 90% of the people your worried about wouldn't vote for the person i do anyway.

Wanna bet? (Great discouse!)
The Professor

[tx_dem41]

64. Ummmm....hate to point this out, but you just hit the nail on the head.

Let's reword that statement. "10% of the people I am worried about might vote for the person I do."

Hello, President Gore!

[ProfessorGAC]

77. 10% of What?

You don't ever back up your assertions with logic, do you?

10% of the people that i personally insulted? Gee, that would be about 3/10ths of a person. That would have elected Gore? He lost by 3/10ths of a vote?

Besides, i'm from Illinois, and Bush got trounced here! So, i affected what, how? And, Gore DID win the popular vote. Remember? Or were you too busy celebrating your boy's "victory"?

The Professor

[tx_dem41]

82. Obviously, I am assuming that others feel as you do.....

unfortunately, a large number after reading other posts on this thread. So multiply 0.3 x a large number in Florida. Who knows it might get you to 500 votes!

[ProfessorGAC]

85. And, It Might Just Be That Gore Already Won Florida

Rendering your point moot.
The Professor

[tx_dem41]

88. Ok...I'm not a philosophy major....or a debate veteran...

but I think you just committed a foul. ;-)

[RetroLounge]

95. Which is exactly what the Repugs do.

and they win elections.

Duh.

RL

[tx_dem41]

97. Just call me naive....

But in a choice between principles and power, I'll choose principles. But, I understand that many will compromise their principles to wield power.

[Tsiyu]

112. Compromise principles to gain power Like....wow!

Code words for........?

So you just contradicted yourself. If it's wrong to want the benefits of family SO BADLY that you will accept them ( even if they voted for the Anti-Christ who is going to draft your kids ), why is it wrong to compromise principles?

You state on the one hand that one should put one's convictions below familial comfort, yet claim some stake in principles?

Should non-Nazis have made nice with Nazi sympqathizers in their families during WW2?

Doesn't fly, Shorty. Try again.

[tx_dem41]

114. Why do you assume that to be friendly or loving with someone.....

...you have to agree with every political thought they have? That sounds kind of warped. And please, don't break Godwin's Law.

[Tsiyu]

119. There is a distinct difference between varying opinions

on everyday issues and concerns and varying opinions on the basic premises that led to the foundation of this nation.

If you believe that some folks are better than others on some nebulous "sliding scale of sin", if you believe killing babies and the elderly for oil is okay, if you want my kids to be drafted, if you enjoy state-controlled media, if you want the rich to get richer and the poor to get pooorer and if you wrap it all up in some Bow of Righteousness, you are a DANGER to me and mine.

You are socially unacceptable and should be shunned if you are a Republican who supported Bush.

[tx_dem41]

120. Well, since no such qualifying issues were mentioned ...

in the original post (or in mine), I'll stand by what I said.

Oh, and remember, if you are pro-choice, and your family is pro-life, using your logic, they have every right to hate your guts.

[Tsiyu]

125. Uuuuh Dude.....

hate my guts?

OK, I'll travel back to the sixth grade, too for a moment.

If they hate me, SO WHAT? I have NEVER cared who liked or disliked me. Anyone who knows me will tell you that.

Even Jesus was hated.

Edited to add: ALL the issues are Repuke realities today. A Puke doesn't haver to come out and say they agree with war for $$$$$$$ By supporting *, they tacitly or otherwise agree.

Just become a Democrat, dude. You will feel better

[tx_dem41]

128. Mr. Ghost, this whole thread has been a trip back to the 6th grade.

You missed that point? ;)

[tx_dem41]

121. And one other thing...

If you want to be rude to Republicans, you go right ahead.

But, on the board, we are a community that needs to stick together. When we start treating each other rudely and using ad hominems, we are doomed. I expect more from Democrats.

[Tsiyu]

126. OK

By the way, what do you like on your pizza?

[tx_dem41]

129. Anchovies....

Lighten up and laugh a little bit.:-)

[the other rick]

116. No, its not

A University of Michigan survey on 2002 showed that a significant percentage of self-identified 'moderates' stated that they felt that liberals idid not consider them and their opinions important.

And large amounts of anecdotal evidence cannot be ignored in politics (any political scientists in the crowd, here?).

*Beyond all that*, this thread and its response sorta' prove my point; a lot of people here don't care what the moderates who voted for Bush think. At all. They "know" that they are stupid/ignorant/brainwashed/evil. Now, let's say that one of these people, worried that they might have made a mistake and doing some research, read this thread. What would they conclude? That a large number of DUers are open-minded, tolerant intellectuals that are trying to make the world better, or that we're a bunch of vicious elitists that don't give a tinker's &#$% about them?

[ProfessorGAC]

45. Give Me A Break!

I made a point that the reply didn't really address. I didn't interject scientist for supriority sake. I did it to explain why 20 people out of 59 million wasn't going to convince me of anything. I need a lot stronger evidence than that.

If you want to be gullible enough to accept the limited anecdotal evidence from ONE poster on DU, and extrapolate it to the whole of the U.S. population, go ahead. I am unwilling to do that, and my training (sorry for the gratuitous reference again!) won't allow it.

There is not one shred of convincing proof that the MOR voters were motivated by anything other than fear. There is nothing in any of the data to suggest that Bush won because Michael Moore is a meanie, or that i am too condescending toward conservatives.

I've seen the surveys of the type you reference. If you would bother to read them carefully, you will observe that in almost every case, there is a fundamental distrust of intellectualism in the preponderance of those respondents. IOW, they don't like smart people. No amount of amelioration is going to make people like that be more respectful of highly, (maybe over) educated people like me.

I DON'T respect people who can't see the big picture. I DON'T respect people who blissfully ignorantly vote against their own interests and against the interests of those who have less than they. I DON'T respect people that loathe intellect and education. And i'm NOT going to pretend otherwise.

If that's not to your liking, tough!
The Professor

[tx_dem41]

48. So Mr. Professor.....

....how would you feel if someone walked up to you and called you stupid and evil. Would your reaction be: "How right you might be! Please, tell me more!" :eyes:

[ProfessorGAC]

49. I'd Ignore Them

I know what i know, and i know what my ability to process information is. If they don't even know me, why would i care what they think?

Geez, what's your problem?
The Professor

[tx_dem41]

50. Well, its another anectdote....but thanks for....

....proving my point! Oh, and I understand, to a "scientist", it really proves nothing. :eyes:

[ProfessorGAC]

52. Drop Dead!

Now, with all my education, i have to hide what i am? I don't get to admit i'm a scientist? I have to pretend that i'm NOT educated?

What country do you live in, where people aren't supposed to be able to be what they are? Me, i'm from America. I don't want to be where you're from.

On Edit: BTW, that's not an anecdote, genius. It's a hypothetical. An anecdote would actually have to occur, and that' never happened to me.
The Professor

[tx_dem41]

53. Of course, you have every right to behave any way you want to....

....just don't expect people to take you seriously. And, that's the problem with that whole attitude, isn't it?

[ProfessorGAC]

60. Yawn!

Geez, you're boring. Happy now?
The Professor

[tx_dem41]

63. Ecstatic

Good luck getting your local candidates voted into office in '06, '08 and beyond!

[ProfessorGAC]

79. My Local Candidates WERE Elected

Illinois is highly blue, my state rep is now a Dem, my State Senator is now a Dem, the county board turned blue, my mayor's a Dem, and the State's Attorney is a now a Dem. Any questions?
The Professor

[tx_dem41]

83. Yes, one question....

can I move to Illinois?....sigh.

[ProfessorGAC]

86. There's Room

But, near Chicago, property values have gotten a little out of hand. Where i live, though, their still under control.
The Professor

[RetroLounge]

96. I'm taking him pretty seriously and happen to agree

with his logic and conclusions.

You on the other hand, well, lets just say I disagree with Dems who wanna play nice-nice with fascists.

RL

[tx_dem41]

100. And I disagree with posters that put words in peoples' mouths.

I have stated that I personally (and, yes, have suggested that others should at least listen to me) do not think calling someone stupid and evil is an efficient method to winning someone over to your side (which is of course the goal of politics). How do you get that "not calling someone stupid and evil" == "playing nice-nice"? I don't understand that reasoning at all.

Please don't put words in my mouth again. Thank you.

[calimary]

127. What do they say when you turn the complaint back to them -

"republi-CONS and conservatives are condescending towards me and treat me as though I'm stupid because I'm a liberal" ?

I must say I'm divided on this. One part of me wants to confront them and call them on their bullshit, because if you allow a bully to go on unconfronted, the bully will never have any reason to change or reform or see the light. Or at least stop. In my experience, confronting the bully - if not enlightening him, has at least motivated him to stop his attacks and behave himself in my presence.

I just am tired of seeing the word "liberal" slammed, and I'm rawther intrigued by any and all ideas about taking it back - by force if necessary.

[RUDUing2]

130. I have done that and they have had to try and defend the stance

which in turns make them start thinking, because I counter the claims...

I didn't say we had to be silent and let them say whatever they want...what I said was we have to make sure that we don't become part of the problem by confirming the stereotypes of liberals that they have already swallowed whole...

[bobbyboucher]

122. His proof is that it pisses him off when

people call him evil and ignorant so he is going to continue to vote Repubic to get back at them.

Simple really.

[RUDUing2]

124. lol...um sure...sorry to bust your bubble but so far I have voted for

Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore and Kerry..wow what a dyed in the wool republican I am...

oh yeah and I voted for a dead man for US senator cause he was a dem...

still laughing at your comment..thanks for the comedy routine..

[BillZBubb]

26. Christ Almighty! No wonder we are considered WIMPS!

Gosh we mustn't offend anyone or they won't vote for us! Please.

"Liberal", "girly-men", "traitors", "socialists", etc. etc. We get tagged and it never hurts the Repugs.

We don't fight, that's why we don't win. We need to make "conservative" stand for what it is today--a dirty word.

[RUDUing2]

36. there is a difference between stating your beliefs, convincing people to

change their viewpoints, and being unnecessarily rude and insulting, it is entirely possible to do the former w/out resorting to the latter, even if the latter lets you get rid of your own frustrations. It doesn't help the situation, it doesn't convert anyone or convince them their beliefs are incorrect, all it does is make them dig in their heels and completely tune you out.

So your choice....insult people and sabotage any chance of changing their beliefs by being rude, condescending and insulting...or open a respectful dialogue with them and possibly enlightening them and showing them that not all libs are rude, condescending and insulting..and helping the dems instead of harming them.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

58. Being unnecessarily rude and insulting seems to work for...

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bob Novak, Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Laura Ingrahm, Michelle Malkin, James Lileks (local neo-con columnist), Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews...
Did I miss any?

See, when they get all angry and insulting, liberals and Democrats tend to say "don't hurt me". Not anymore. The 20 million that give these people air time and credibility will not ever, ever change their minds. And they're bullies, too. They love it, and the 20 million that give these people credibility love it, too. They're used to verbally beating up on those "poor, misguided liberals" because they want to be on the side of the bully. You put them on a level playing field, and guess what? Their true nature shows. (See the last meeting between Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly on CSPAN for that one. O'Reilly nearly blew a vein in his forehead because he couldn't silence Franken.) Crossfire is another example. The Republicans were calling for a party-wide boycott of the show when Carville and Begala joined the show, because they didn't take shit from the right and they stood up for what they believed.

They don't want a respectful dialogue. They want to silence us. We've been nice and polite for a very long time, and quite simply, that hasn't worked one bit. Jon Stewart even mentioned this on the Daily Show once. I don't remember the exact phrase, but it was something like: when the Republicans start saying something, they act all tough and rough and get in the Democrats' face. And the Democrats say "don't hurt me."

They control the media now, they control the entire governmnet, and they've fooled a lot of people into thinking that they're the only ones who can protect us. How did they do that? They certainly were not nice and polite, were they? For some stupid reason, America likes the tough guy. They love it when someone gets tough with his enemies. But they love it when someone stands up to the bullies even more. And that's what we have to do. They've been bullying us around for a long time, and I for one am not going to take it anymore.

I seem to recall that I had a similar conversation with someone else yesterday. He ended up calling me a "fucking dumbass" :shrug:

[tx_dem41]

59. Well...I don't want to emulate the people you named.....

why do you?

Can you cite an example of a Democrat saying "Don't hurt me?" You seem to believe that there are two options: 1) Yell, scream, belittle, and lie, or 2) Saying "Don't hurt me".

It seems like that there are sooo many other options. I'm sorry you that you can't see that.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

66. Alan Colmes does it every night.

Tom Daschle, too. And look where that got him. (He was an excellent debater, but the rules of the debate changed on him, and he didn't change with them)
Shall I go on?
The point is this: the people I mentioned get a LOT of air time. A hell of a lot of air time. And rationally trying to explain our point of view won't work with them. Look at Michelle Malkin's appearance on Harball when she all accused John Kerry of wounding himself in Vietnam. Every time Matthews tried to get her to answer the question "Are you accussing John Kerry of shooting himself in Vietnam?" she hemmed and hawed and tried to dance around it and pretty much controlled the interview. The only way Matthews could counter her actions was to get tough with her.

So, I'm "sorry" if I react when someone calls me a "fucking traitor", "baby killer", "faggot liberal", "fucking communist", or a whole slew of other words. Quite often, they're in my face screaming it at me, and you suggest I should try to rationally explain my position to these kind of people? Go ahead if you want to, but yesterday I was told that I should just "shut my goddamn mouth and get along" with these kind of people. Nope. Not gonna do it. Every time I "try to get along" with these kind of people, I get kicked in the teeth.

I'm tired of being bullied. Deal with THAT.

[tx_dem41]

69. Well maybe we have found common ground...

in the example you describe, why would you consider asking Michelle Malkin the question "Are you accusing John Kerry of shooting himself in Vietnam?" being unnecessarily rude and insulting (reference to your post #58).

I call that debating respectfully and forcefully. Sounds like you have bought into the meme that challenging someone is rude and insulting.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

89. Okay, perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough...

That's what I meant to say. I used the list above as an example of who's being rude and insulting. I think I was wrong to imply that we have to respond with the same venom. But we have to be passionate about our ideals. When it comes to the 20 million that will vote for Bush and his ilk no matter what, it doesn't matter what you say. They'll still hate you. (Hate's a strong word, but yes, they hate us.)

As for Michelle Malkin, Matthews had to get in her face, point his finger at her, and shout her down, because that's the only thing that she would understand. She's of the kind of person who is used to dominating the debate, controlling the content, and getting her message out without challenge. Matthews had to interrupt her and "shout her down" (He didn't shout, but he was extremely forceful) because Malkin kept interrupting him.) Usually, these kind of people try to prevent us from speaking because they know they're wrong, and they know that if we get to speak, we'll cite some facts that will prove them wrong. I have a "friend" like that. He always interrupts me, tries to shout me down, and eventually just calls me a "fucking liberal shithead". Why? Because I refuse to back down to him. Okay, so maybe that's not being rude and insulting, but hey, I'm only human, and like I said, I'm not going to take shit from these people anymore. I've received death threats from co-workers because of my political stance, and that kind of shit makes me angry.

Maybe it's just knowing your audience. Knowing how someone will react to a certain method of debating can go a long way. If you're the special guest on O'Reilly, expect to be challenged, shouted down, and told to "shut up". And be prepared to counter that. If you're debating your opponent in a public forum, then be respectful, but extremely forceful about your position. Best example I can give is during the third debate, when Bush said that Kerry's claim that Bush didn't care about bin Laden was one of those "exaggerations." How I would have loved it if Kerry looked straight at Bush and said "Mr. President, you have just lied to the American people. I have a transcrtipt here of your press conference where you clearly stated that you didn't think about bin Laden much anymore. Why did you just lie?" Perhaps the debate format didn't allow for Kerry to say anything. I don't know. All I know is that I never heard Kerry say that magical word. It's a dangerous word to use in politics, but there were so many facts to back up the claim that Bush lies to the American people, I'm frankly surprised that Kerry didn't say it.

So I guess that I didn't clarify my position on discussions clear enough. I think it depends on your audience. If you're in mixed company, be strong with your beliefs and your facts, don't back down when someone gets in your face, even in mixed company, but if you're alone with them, let em' rip. If they're part of that 20 million, they're not going to vote Democratic anyways. But don't take any shit from them, either.

[stanwyck]

92. Face it

some people are Vichy France and some are the Resistance. It appears a few of our DU brethren prefer appeasement to battle. That is how the bad guys win.
I mean, you don't want to be "rude, condescending, or insulting" to people who support torture, the destruction of our environment, the curtailment of women's choice, the crippling of our economy, the end of separation of church and state, the manipulation of intelligence...why, that might get you kicked out of the Junior League. Heavens.

[RUDUing2]

101. no I don't want to be rude condescending etc if that means that the

norm that I am fighting against continues. I would rather find new ways to become effective.

To be honest I see the ones who would rather *make a stand* even if it means that you lose as more along the lines of vichy france, the govt. claimed they were doing something, but made sure that it was in a totally ineffective way...in order to claim to be part of the resistance you actually have to be willing to do something that will make a difference, not taking a stand just for the sake of taking a stand so you can *claim* you did something as opposed to actually doing something.

Sometimes more is gained by quiet means..speaking of WWII..check out Carl Lutz, Schindler, and Wallenberg...they understood this.

[stanwyck]

102. although

you make your point well, I'd doubt we'd be in this fine country today if our founding fathers had your benign attitude. The patriots threw tea into the harbor, wrote incendiary rhetoric, and raised a ragtag army against the British empire. The Democratic Party's "quiet means" have allowed the Republicans to hoard the issues. Religion has become the sole domain of Republicans. As well as "values". Why? Because of our "quiet means". Republicans are considered fiscal conservatives, despite the largest deficit in history. Silence will hardly help us convince people of the failings of current economic policy. And silence in the face of the atrocities being committed by our government is not a case of "ineffectiveness", it's a crime against humanity.
Evil succeeds when good people do nothing.
Make some noise.

[RUDUing2]

103. but nobody is saying be silent...what I am saying is be careful how you

state your opinion...make sure that you are not doing harm by the words you use.

You can call *republicans policies* evil and stupid..but when you personalize it by calling someone who votes republican evil and stupid you lose any chance of dialogue with them and any chance of leading them to change their vote.

In other words instead of saying *anyone who votes republican is evil and stupid* say *republican policies and the republican platform is evil and stupid*...it basically means the exact same thing, but it is less likely to be viewed as a personal attack and so is more likely to allow you to have a chance (however small the chance is) to talk to the person about why you believe this and maybe that person will then start to think about some of what you have said and slowly realize that you are correct in your statements...

[stanwyck]

105. certainly a worthy ambition

to convert through reasonable dialogue. Good luck. But where/when does that happen? On Hannity's show? On O'Reilly's? They're as fixed as pro wrestling. (and taped). Certainly not on Limbaugh or Boortz's carefully screened shows. A certain percentage of our population is lost. They're never going to listen. Well, not to us. They won't believe cold, hard facts. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We weren't attacked by Iraq on September 11th. Yet half of America still believes both to be true. Your dialogue isn't going very well. And you have help from newspaper columnists, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, and various rock musicians. We're losing. The conservatives are winning. So, yes, we need new tactics. But I disagree on the methods. I don't believe we'll combat the likes of the neocons and their media blitz with your one on one conversions. The swiftboat veterans proved this. They lied and lied about Kerry. And they got their message out. Bush was AWOL from his Alabama Guard service. Yet that crucial information was ignored. Again, this isn't a chess game. This is the future of what America means. Let's grow a backbone and change the direction.

[RUDUing2]

107. my discussions did change a few voters...and it made some others think..

whereas if I had just called them evil and stupid they would have voted repub...

I think we do have to get back to basics and concentrate on connecting to mr. and mrs. middle america again..

[stanwyck]

109. Your efforts

are laudatory. But how bad does our country have to become before you consider that what is happening is...evil? How many people have to die? How much environmental damage has to occur? What about women's rights? Minority rights? Gay rights? Maybe evil does exist. And maybe failing to recognize evil is the same as abetting. At what point do you decide to fight back? How bad is bad enough for you? Those who were against the Viet Nam War took to the streets. So did those who believed in civil rights. Many were beaten or jailed, or both, for their efforts. When does passivity become cowardice? We're losing the battle. The Bushies have been able to shape the debate. What we're doing is not working. I think we need to be stronger. What's happening is evil. Denying that is not helping.

[RUDUing2]

113. Nobody is denying that what is happening is wrong.

but I don't think personal vilification will help to change it.

Holding up a mirror, yes...saying the actions and behaviors are wrong, yes...getting the message out that nullifies the republican claims, yes.

But personal vilification has never worked. That is why we can not call *people* stupid and evil if you want to work effectively for a change..you have to concentrate on the actions and reactions..

A person who supports the war in Iraq may have legitimate reasons for doing so..they see it from a different angle then I do...but telling them they are evil for doing so will not change their position..however if I call the war in Iraq evil and the actions of the republican party in regards to Iraq stupid and evil and explain *why* I believe that, then they may change their mind.

During the sixties and seventies we didn't call individuals evil or stupid (or if we did it was in their official capacity not as a person..)..we called their actions evil and stupid...we called their policies and beliefs evil and stupid...but we also were willing to loudly proclaim why we felt that way. And TBH one of the major forces for social change was "All In The Family"...we held a mirror up and america didn't like what it showed them about themselves...

[leesa]

41. Well, they will find out shortly how stupid they were, so maybe

we don't need to tell them. Sorry, but I will NOT pretend that Republican thought and action is good or intelligent. We don't need to name call, but don't pretend what they are doing and saying is good or wise.

[RUDUing2]

54. nobody is saying to do that, what I am saying is that there is a

difference between teaching and discussing and insulting people.

If the goal is to convert moderates back to dems then you will not achieve it by insulting them.

If you have a child who has probs learning and you have your choice between two teachers..both very qualified. Teacher one tells your child how stupid they are and insists that they *have* to learn or it just proves how stupid they are...and Teacher (who btw also believes your child is stupid), tells your child that they can learn and explains to them how to do so.

So which teacher are you going to send your child to?

The one who continually tells your child they are stupid or the one who convinces the child that they arent?

[tx_dem41]

57. Who on this thread ever said that we have to pretend that ....

Republican thought and action is good or intelligent???

[soleft]

6. Evil, Stupid, or Afraid

I know some people who voted for Bush and they are neither Evil or Stupid. They are driven by their emotion - and that emotion is fear, whether it's fear of sex, or fear of the other, or fear of death.

[MessiahRp]

14. Fear of Sex?

Come on now. :)

Rp

[leesa]

44. Not examining your fear may be construed as stupid. WHAT are they

afraid of? They are afraid because their teevees tell them to be?

[bullimiami]

7. i would say evil, stupid or horribly naive.

Evil covers those who know what it is they do.

Stupid covers those who are taken so easily by jingoistic propaganda, who go with the crowd and dont think independently. The masses that will follow power ; good or evil as the wind blows.

Naive covers those who trust blindly. Trust the illusion of "America", trust the illusion of "Religion". Those whose intent is to do "good" but whose intent has been twisted by those they believe tell them truth.

[rock]

8. Self-delusional

also works.

[Taxloss]

9. Scared, naive and trusting. For some, anyway.

There is certainly an "evil or stupid" constituency.

[Dawgs]

10. Sounds good to me...

Let's go with it.

[immoderate]

11. I'll vote for stupid.

Republicans mostly come in three flavors:

1. Plutocrats and arrogant rich
   
2. Fundamentalists
   
3. Racists

There are some miscellaneous that I find hard to comprehend. I have a friend that sent me some teasing web stuff after the election, which I countered with some TOONS. Finally, I sent him a few articles, picked up here, about the plight of veterans, the atrocities in Falujah, and the big line: WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?

He replied with some right wing tract and the Swiftboat Liars ad.

I may post the tract here for severe debunking. He works for a major defense contractor, and I think he gets bad information all the time. So he falls into a fourth category of deniers. It's tough because I like the fellow a lot, we have many mutual friends, and most of our contacts are parties (not political) and other social venues where politics is almost never discussed. I'm going to work on him, though.

--IMM

[Penguin31]

12. Blunt way of putting it, but at the end of the day, largely true (nt)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. or greedy (Which i guess is evil)

[tx_dem41]

15. Your wife is right. n/t

[RetroLounge]

98. You are wrong.

RL

[chicagiana]

16. Misinformed ...

People are wildely and radically misinformed by our news media. They have been shackeled and immersed into Socratese's cave. It takes a strong will and skeptical mind to resist self complimentary propgaganda.

In my opinion, some people are born "believers", some people are born "skeptics". Those born believers seek comfort and solace in finding a belief and sticking with it. The fact that they've made up their mind is more important than getting it right. The skeptics would rather cut off their hands than believe something that isn't true.

BTW, I think this applies to BOTH sides. There are people on our side who are equally synchopantic. Substitute Christian for "new age" and you have the same thing. It is no different than "non-conformists" who are deperate to conform with their sub-culture.

[wuushew]

17. Not all problems are emotional or subjective

There are demonstrable best solutions to controlling health problems, levels or education, engineering issues. Certainly things like tax and financial policy should not be based on faith.

The complexity of the modern world benefits from a rational order and method to the resolution of these issues. Emotional arguments are strong but they are also contradictory and self-defeating. Witness the platform of the Republican party who's motley collection of single issue voters help enact policies which serve to the detriment of most of its members.

[chicagiana]

28. I disagree ...

I believe MOST of the Republican voters constitute a fairly homogenous group of "believers". Yes, they do tend to vote for policies that are against their best interest. But they're told that those policies ARE in their best interest. Or they fool themselves (through vanity) into believing they are (or will be) among "the chosen", therefore they should favor policies the exclusively benefit "the chosen".

As I listened to Sean Hannity on "The Majority Report", I was forced to agree with him on a point. He charactarized the Dems as a collection of special interest groups. In this case, special meaning "focused". Would the Gay alliance vote Democratic if the Dems favored the gay marriage bans??? Would NOW support Dems if they caved in to the anti-abortion crowd??? Would the environmentalists support Dems if they sacrificed conservation???

The answer on most fronts is that they are deal breakers. To me, the Democratic community seem far more heterogenous.

I wise man once said "I don't belong to an organized political party ... I'm a Democrat". I think those words are still true today. Republicans a defined group. Democrats are whats left over.

I think diversity IS a strength. But at a certain point, voters have to realize that politics is NOT a buffet. You get to choose between a nice entree with a crappy desert, or a nice desert teamed with a lousy entre.

Voting to punish a candidate only punishes the party. In the end, we must all be willing to sacrifice our "favorite issue" for the greater good of the whole. The job of the activist is to create enough political consensus to move their issue forward with popular support.

[oasis]

18. The dumbest shits I know are all Republicans or Bush supporters.

[rman]

20. I think it would be more constructive

to help the gullible ones see that they are being conned by the evil ones.

[wuushew]

21. Oh come on how often does that work?

Two years of fact filled Iraq War lectures hasn't converted any of the moronic uber patriots I know.

[sangh0]

30. Look at the numbers

Since the invasion began, the numbers supporting it has dropped like a rock. About dozen of my friends have since changed their mind about Iraq.

[ibegurpard]

22. Evil, stupid, or ignorant

And ignorant does NOT equate with stupid. It just means that someone is unaware of what's going on. Very easy position to be in when the focus is on working to provide for yourself and your family without the time or inclination to really investigate what our government actually DOES instead of just what they SAY at election time. Particularly hard now that we have a corporate-controlled media that is more interested in provide the scintillating details of the latest Michael Jackson scandal than in actually questioning what our government does beyond what they say.

[Voltaire]

23. You know something

We have jobs and responsibilities and have to work on providing for ourselves and our families too. I am SO sick of that being the excuse for these people being stupid, evil, misinformed, whatever in hell you want to use. It implies that we are the slacker hippies WITHOUT responsibility that they think we are. I have responsibilities too and I remain active, aware and knowledgeable about the world around me.

Just a real BIG pet peeve I have.

[ibegurpard]

27. That would be WILLFUL ignorance

which falls under this category:
"without the time or INCLINATION to really investigate what our government actually DOES instead of just what they SAY at election time."

[Individualist]

94. Absolutely!

And when confronted with facts, they stubbornly dismiss them.

[screembloodymurder]

24. You just don't understand the Wisdumb of the republican party.

****

[Cookie wookie]

25. They've lost all their excuses with me

unless their IQ is 80 or less. Otherwise, the least amount of common sense and self-interest would keep them from voting for *, so I say they are:

1) Hateful
2) Racist bigots
3) Self-righteous
4) Sociopaths
5) Selfish SOBs
6) Neurotic to the point of needing medical care
7) or, all of the above

I don't even try to justify them any more, not since the election. All excuses are just useless. They know enough to wave the flag but are too stupid to know their votes are not being counted accurately -- HA. They know exactly what they are doing and are voting for * because he in all his evilness is what they love.

Sorry for being so mean, but I'm sick of them right now.

[stanwyck]

74. me, too

the selfishness of those who mindlessly say "I want lower taxes" while ignoring the environment, education, healthcare, the deficit, the war, the torture, and the economy is, to quote Janeanne Garafolo "a character flaw". The only way you can vote Republican is to not pay attention. You're listening to hate-radio and repeating their drivel as "facts". You don't read. You don't travel. You don't care. This is how world powers become impotent. Why let these people off the hook? They're ruining our country with selfishness.

[w4rma]

29. Illogical, ignorant, naive and out of touch with reality. Not stupid.

And then there are the evil ones whose purpose is to gain more power and wealth for themselves by pulling these brainwashed souls' strings.

[the other rick]

33. So, you all think

that it is impossible for someone to disagree with you unless they are illogical, stupid, ignorant, or evil? That, by implication, people can be automatically classified as smart, informed, logical, and good just because they agree with you?

[Cookie wookie]

34. "someone to disagree with you"

This is not about disagreement on matters of opinion on complex subjects. It's about truth vs. lies. As in (to list only a few):

1) linking Al Qaeda and 9/11 to Iraq - something that is patently untrue
2) lying and misleading the public about WMD in Iraq
3) lying and misleading about failures within the administration in the months before 9/11 to do what was necessary to protect the Am people
4) the White House deliberately withholding evidence from the public that shows a connection between the Saudi royal family and funding being funneled to 9/11 terrorists
5) lying and saying the administration never dreamed that planes might be used as weapons

and on and on, ad infinitum.

* supporters choose to believe lies in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Their blind following of this administration has put all Americans in grave danger from terrorists, not to mention it has cost thousands of innocent lives, and that includes the lives of little children and babies.

IMO: That qualifies as illogical, stupid, ignorant, and evil behavior.

[the other rick]

38. I've always enjoyed...

The rather gratuitous addition of phrases to elicit an emotional response. I always assumed 'innocent lives' would include 'little children and babies'.

Here's the problem. What do you do about the conservatives that know that there was no link between Saddam and al Qaeda? That supported the war in Iraq with or withour WMD? Or that conclude that many of the failings prior to 9/11 are systemic to the intelligence system, not a particular administration?

In other words, you are *assuming* that all conservatives are conservatives because they are ignorant, stupid, evil, etc., etc., etc. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that perhaps some, perhaps many, of them simply disagree with you. That they look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions not out of maliciousness, ignorance, or irrationality but because of, say, differences in life experience, culture, or personal goals.

[stanwyck]

70. I believe we have a different

view on the seriousness of our country's future. Backtracking on environmental legislation, lauding testing over learning, cherry-picking intelligence and intentionally manipulating data, failing to deal with healthcare and economic concerns, downgrading science, running up a crippling deficit, and condoning the use of torture is more than cocktail party disagreement.
This is the future of America.
Your appeasement does not serve the country.
We're not the Good Germans going along to get along. We're patriots fighting the soul of our country.
We might lose a few friends along the way. It's all a matter of what is important to you. Your beer buddies or your country. You decide.

[tx_dem41]

73. Well, that certainly answered his question.

:eyes:

He actually had a good point.

[the other rick]

117. Nice speech

I'm sure the Academy is impressed. How about answering my question??

[theriverburns]

31. Here, here

or is it hear, hear? Anyways, you are 100% correct. You do have to be evil or stupid (or ignorant) to vote Republican.

[mmonk]

32. Use it

It's time they hear it.

[booley]

46. well what if they are?

I mean, many shrub supporters must be either incredibly obtuse to not have noticed how evil this admin is..or they don't care which makes them as culpable.

So why not call them on it? Sure they will get defensive. That's the first sign when somebody knows they are in the wrong. But if we keep pushing, our position becomes the common knowledge.

And why is being right considered arrogent? If I say 1+1=2, that's not arrogence, that's simply stating a fact. And thats' the same when we take the evidence we have make the obviouse conclusion that Shrub is not only a bad president who is not making us safer, but activly corrupt and deceitful.

How can we get anywhere if we are always afraid to state the truth? maybe we can try to be more diplomatic, or less strident or whatever. but we should not cow tow to people who choose ot ignore reality becuase they find it too unpleasant.

Like my grandpa once said..being poor is nothing to be ashamed of, but being stupid is nothing to brag about.

[Tighthead Prop]

68. Disagree Somewhat.

Its because they are brainwashed at a young age. During the election I saw babies being carried around with "Babies for W" shirts on and "Babies for Family Values". Like these two year olds have any idea who GWB is and what values are. Republicans have to start brainwahsing their young at a tender because once theyre able to think for themselves, Republicans dont stand a chance. However, theres still hope people! Break the chains your parents (or whoever) have placed upon you! THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!

[hyphenate]

78. I think the truth is

that you have to be ego-centric, self-centered and extremely selfish to vote for the chimp. It's not just those who are ignorant, stupid or evil, but those who are also intolerant, bigots or just plain into themselves.

[shakerbaker]

80. Brainwashed,Ignorant,Fearful

or Greedy. Unfortunately name calling won't help. We need to find a way to reach these people.I don't believe that if most of them knew what the Neocons are really about that they would have backed them.

Ours is a country that defended the world against Nazi Germany.Ours is not a country that attacks innocent people.That's not acceptable.

[Skittles]

91. stop being so whipped

republicans used to just annoy me - now they are trashing my future and the future of America. People who vote for these lying, thieving bastards need to be told not all of us are fooled and WE CARE.

[samtob]

93. Your wife gets my vote

What are we asking people to do (the ones who did not support the dems this year)? When simplified, we are asking them to contribute, with their vote the next election.

I used this example once before, but I believe it is relevant here.

Let's say you are fund raising for (insert cause here), naturally you will contact people who you know are able to contribute.

Joe X is a local succesful businessman, you don't care for him personally, or professionally. You took note there were repug campaign signs at his business during the election season.... but, he does have money to give.

If you approach Mr. X, state your opinions regarding what you consider questionable business practices, underpaying his employees, and how you consider him to be evil in general. Topping it off with the fact you are boycotting his products due to his repug contributions, you can hardly expect him to contribute to your cause.

[RetroLounge]

99. "You must be evil or stupid to vote republican..."

that about sums it up.

RL

[Bridget Burke]

104. "Shortsighted or Uninformed" would be the more polite way to put it.

But Evil or Stupid is more direct.

[okieinpain]

106. thanks. you're right. I've started asking when are they enlisting.

[bobbieinok]

108. UNINFORMED

many do not realize how TV 'news' has changed......they still think if they watch a few, maybe even one channel frequently, they are 'well-informed'

[the other rick]

118. I'll ask this again

Since no one has actually addressed it yet.

What are we going to do about intelligent, educated people who *disagree*? Someone who knows that Iraq had no ties with alQaeda and still think that the War in Iraq is acceptable, with or without WMDs? That believes the intelligence failings prior to 9/11 are symptoms of a flawed intelligence system and have nothing to do with a particular administration? Who is well-informed, intelligent but reaches different conclusions because of things like, say, differences in culture, or personal goals, or life experience?

Are we just giving up on these people? Do we assume our message can't reach them? Lumping everyone who voted conservative with the label 'stupid/ignorant/brainwashed/evil' is the admission that we can't reach them, that we can't ever change them or their views or their decisions.

In other words, its giving up.

[Tsiyu]

110. You are correct

And I stand with you in saying: Stupidity should be painful.

[jellybelly]

111. Confused Bible Lovers

Evil is reserved for people who kill and torture others. Assuming a large percentage of republicans aren't out killing gays and black people.

[Vidar]

115. I'm willing to add "deluded".

[malmapus]

123. Yeah I'm not allowed to say those that voted..

don't mind having blood on their hands. Sucks that I have to keep my views to myself alot.