My friend of 12 years responds to my e-mail and I swear he doesn't get it

[Melodybe]

Here is my e-mail

If you can't see the moral problems involved with continuing to support a spoiled, disgusting, murdering, racist, war profiteering, greedy, and all around cruel person like George Bush, we can't be friends anymore.

I also think that maybe you should look into your own heart and examine why it is that you continue to identify with a monster like him.

Agendas, are kidding me? We have had nothing but Bushco's corporatist, fascist agenda draped in the America flag: robbing us of every single progressive step America has made in the last one hundred years, robbing us of our great middle class, robbing us of our treasury, robbing us of our future on a healthy planet, robbing of our Bill of Rights, robbing us of our very Constitution.

There is no defending that Cam, it is perverse to even try.

HE FUCKING WENT TO FUNDRAISERS, PLAYED GUITAR, AND ATE CAKE WITH JOHN MCCAIN, WHILE OUR FELLOW CITIZENS DROWNED IN WATER FILLED WITH SHIT, POISON, AND DEATH!!!

He had his Nero moment, he got to be Marie Antoinette, and now it is time to throw him and his entire corrupt government in jail.

Respect? Fuck off! You have no respect for your fellow man, you have no respect for the truth, you have no respect for decency, you have no respect for democracy.


Don't talk me again, I give up on you.


here is his response

Melody,

I don't know where to begin after your response. This may come across a little jumbled, but bare with me.

First of all, I think we may have had a bit of a misunderstanding. This is one of the problems I find with email, you can't gauge another's tone, and there aren't any facial expressions and body language to help decipher someone's intent. My email to you on Friday night was a criticism of Maher and Chavez, not you. I want to clarify this because I was shocked that you attacked me in your response. As I have mentioned before, one has to be careful with where you get your information and accordingly who you quote and associate oneself with. The point I was trying to make is that I was dissatisfied with your decision to quote Maher and Chavez. I agree with you on the Bush Administration's response, hell, the whole world does! The problem lies in quoting two men that don't add any credibility to your argument, but in fact they take credibility away. When most intelligent activists don't place any weight on these men's comments, and then you choose to, people will turn the heads away from your argument. They will write you off as nonsense! I have mentioned this to you before, but I guess I can't explain it very well. I don't mean that condescendingly; again, the problem with email for communication. When I said, "I think you lose credibility, and more importantly: respect," I mean that people will lose respect for your word or input on such matters. It would be like if I constantly referenced Jerry Falwell. The guys a nut! He and Pat Robertson say the dumbest things all the time, and they both have agendas. For example, say I agree with some conservative policy that they also support, and I'm trying to also convince someone else that this is a good policy. Well, I'm not going to mention these mens' names or quote their speeches in support, because people are going to think I must be a nut or uneducated to reference them. I would lose credibilty from then on if I was to ever voice my opinion, because people will think that's the guy that quoted Jerry Falwell. They would lose respect for my insight regardless of how informed I may be.

Some of the best advice I ever received was from my best friend's father. He told me "Cam, if you play in the mud, people are going to think you're a pig. You may not be, but your gonna smell like one and that's enough for some people."

Melody, as I tell you often, you are intelligent. I respect you more than you believe. This is why it bothers me to see you quote these men, post links to sites that are full of misinformation, construe wording (albeit inadvertantly), etc. I know from experience that people will write you off in a second! You have to have your game on 24-7! You do, but sometimes I think you get a little too excited...your own words from the incident at the candle-light vigil on the Square. I hope to hear from you and that we may continue to be friends. I commented at the beginning of the summer how much I enjoy these emails because we know there's nothing we can do to change each other's minds, however we respect each other enough that we know each have valid issues and can learn from one another. You've opened my eyes to so much, and I appreciate that immensely. I think it would be an embarassment on both our parts not to see through this and reconcile over what I believe was misrepresented and misunderstood.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Cam

He still doesn't seem to get it. I don't even know if I want to bother with a response.

[hatrack]

1. Don't bother - you're wasting your time

nt

[AspenRose]

2. Nah

I heard you on Randi a couple of weeks ago....you're too sweet and passionate about your beliefs to waste your time with it....

If he's not going to see it now, he probably won't....ever...and if he eventually does, maybe it means someone else had to deal with him to get through to him....not you.

Does that make sense?

Edit: My husband is a republican. All last year we fought. I have finally surrendered him up to someone else who can hopefully get through to him where I couldn't.

[Walt Starr]

3. How I would handle it

I would write the following back:

I don't know you. Never email me again.

[Habibi]

4. Well, he's certainly convinced himself

that others will "write you off."

I wonder what "misinformation" he's referring to. Since he doesn't specify any, it's a little hard to address his point.

Is this a friendship worth saving?

[Melodybe]

10. I want to strangle him over the pig comment

BTW I kicked his ass in HS debate class, I won the award that year.

I don't know, I think that I should have him over for dinner and force him to watch F9/11, Out Foxed, and a few other good documentaries.

Then I want to sit and completely distroy all of his arguments.

All the while trying to keep my husband out of the conversation cause, my hubby who is even better at logic than I am, would probably make him cry.

I don't know what to do about this.

[Tamarin]

5. I don't think I could be friends with someone who wants to

control my responses. He's belittling you while trying to hide behind *improving* you, let him go.

[Rainscents]

6. One last quick email back to her and tell her, she had been BLOCKED

from your email address! I did this to few right wingers.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. Patience

I wouldn't email him back, at least not now. Wait until the next big Bush disaster (and you know it will come). Then email him with facts and ask for his opinions. Little by little you may change him. I say that because his response is at least polite and not filled with threats of death and hell for you, which is the response I've gotten from many who "don't get it".

[Traveling_Home]

8. "My friend of 12 years....."

What does friendship mean to you?

[Melodybe]

11. I don't know, at this point I just want to scream at him

However, I'm suppose to have something to do with him b/c we keep running into eachother.

It's like god wants us to argue.

[Traveling_Home]

15. Friendships

Friendship should last longer than a presidential term in office. You already have 12 years invested in the friendship - afterall it's just B*, who has more life value in YOUR life.

And no this is not a Hallmark card.

;-)

[HamdenRice]

9. He lost me at "bare with me"...

unforgiveable diction or spelling.

[bicentennial_baby]

50. same here

[lectrobyte]

12. You're probably not going to change his mind, and he is sure not

gonna change yours... I choke myself to type "agree to disagree", but that may be the only way your friendship can survive. The question is, do you want it to?

[Melodybe]

13. I don't know, I 'm gonna talk to my sweet husband and see what he says

I don't even understand why Cam feels the need to keep in touch with me.

[tjwmason]

18. Not being funny - he probably made contact

because he values your friendship.

Politics is politics - frienship is friendship.

Even if you are unable to separate the two clearly he is.

[Ravenseye]

14. Is there more to this that I"ve missed?

What has transpired before this? What's his take on other things?

I think he has some good points and some that I think more progressives should take to heart. You're not going to preach to anyone but the choir when you quote certain people, and say certain things. If you don't keep a reasonable tone, and quote sources that are commonly considered reputable, they won't listen.

I love Michael Moore, I own Farenheit 9/11 and all his books, but I'd never quote him to try and convince my freeper in-laws of anything. They'd shut down.

That's sort of what he seems to be saying. I'm sure there's something that even I would agree with Jerry Falwell on, but that doesn't mean that I'd want to use something he said to prove it. Whether that person is Jerry Falwell, Bill Maher, Paul Krugman, or Muhatma Ghandi, there are names from all sides that while respected within a certain sphere, are not without.

I don't know what sites he's refering to, or what wording he's talking about, but he's right. If you quote something you read on Democratic Underground, or link it to someone not of the progressive persuasion, they're not going to read it, or they're going to read it and not believe it, just like if someone sent you something from Freeperland or the Washington Times written by Michelle Malkin.

Like I said, I don't know the history here, but he seems far from unreasonable in this post.

Whether you're a liberal or a conservative, if you approach the opposite side without respect, a calm manner, and established source respectable to both sides, you're not going to get anywhere. His reply seemed measured and respectfull, while yours was sort of banging off the wall a bit.

I'd take a deep breath and try and continue the conversation calmly.

[Frances]

16. If you lived in a townhouse development as red as mine is,

you would look on the bright side and see that your friend acknowleges Bush was wrong on New Orleans.

As far as I can see, the main disagreement your friend has with you is that he doesn't think that Maher and Chavez are the right people for you to use to buttress your argument. He doesn't disagree with the argument itself.

I confess that I have disagreed with Maher on occasion. Didn't Maher support Nader in 2000?

In other words, I think it's very possible to prove how much of a disaster Bush has been without relying on either Maher or Chavez.

[Melodybe]

20. I wasn't relying on either, I sent a rant of Maher's and the UN article

on Chavez out in a mass e-mail.

I just said that they both kicked ass, he is inferring that I somehow tried to use them to strengthen my argument, when in reality, he is the only conservative on my list and everyone else loved them.

ARG, he is a nice guy, I think that I want him to come over so I can just rip into him, with no confusion over inflection.

[Atman]

17. Oh well...he's lost.

The whole "I'm simply better at understanding things than you" tone made me sick. It was just a long, drawn-out, albeit well-written attempt for him to have his cake and eat it, too. While he never came out and parroted support for Chimpy, it was painfully clear by the last couple of sentences that that was exactly what he was doing...saying "Thanks, you've opened my eyes to so much. But I'm still goin' with the monster" is such a fuck you. Like, "thanks, but I don't give a rat what you think because you watch Bill Maher and think Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected president." In short, you refuse to buy into the Right Wing version of reality, so there. He actually COULD do some research on Chavez and find out for himself about his eeevil plan to distribute oil wealth to his citizens, and his calls for revisiting userous oil contracts with the US. But then, what would that make him? The loser. At least in his mind. He cannot allow himself to be a dupe of a moron, so instead he'll prop up the moron until the moran finally crashes and burns...at which point, he'll simply claimed he was a poor victim, and blame the liberal media.

It's a disorder.

[SaveAmerica]

19. He's trying to talk you out of your facts, he's being condescending

to you, it appears to be 'back handed compliments' at its finest. I'd suggest you tell him that you prefer not to live with your head in the sand, you're not afraid to quote from Maher or anyone you quote from because you're confident in your sources. You're living your life and living it right, he's being a pretender by picking and choosing who he quotes from because it 'looks right' or whatever his reasoning is. I'd much rather live life your way and know the peace of my conviction.
A caution about your relationship, he sounds like he's trying to appear good and sweet to you but there might be the usual hate and anger simmering. So many people have posted here about friends that flip out and show their true colors.
I'm starting to be of the opinion that anyone who is a die-hard follower of Bush at this point is a right-off on so many levels and wouldn't care if it was the devil they were following. It's too bad we can't label those hold-outs with a 30% on their foreheads or something.
Good luck with it.

[spuddonna]

21. Let's look at what he says, and what it really means...

HIS QUOTE: "The problem lies in quoting two men that don't add any credibility to your argument, but in fact they take credibility away... I have mentioned this to you before, but I guess I can't explain it very well. "

REALLY MEANS: Your arguments are not valid because he doesn't approve of your sources. You need to 'work' on your arguments because, as he's stated before, they are inherently flawed...

HIS QUOTE: "You have to have your game on 24-7! You do, but sometimes I think you get a little too excited"

REALLY MEANS: You are a hysterical woman...

He's basically saying in his response that 1) you've over-reacted (see 'hysterical woman'), and 2) he's a 'big enough man' to let that slide since you 'attacked him personally'.

I say, don't waste your time on a reply at all, set up a filter to trash his emails or block them.

He has already stated he's not changing his mind. The reason he likes these emails is because you're giving him a metaphorical bone to cut his political teeth on. Plus, he comes across as a smarmy misogynist righteous know it all... that's just my opinion. :)

[SaveAmerica]

23. Oooh, smarmy, I was going to say that I could almost see him smirking!

[Ravenseye]

26. I disagree

I can't speak to this guy, because I don't know any more about this situation than is in this thread, but:

The aspect of the credibility of sources. There are certain names that people on both sides dont' find credible, and some just on one side or another. If he doesn't find either of these sources credible, then be ready to counter with additional sources.

The 'excited' part. I think we liberals tend to be a bit more high strung than the right. They seem so complacent and calm and brainwashed like they're politically stoned. On one occasion with these politically stoned types I got so angry I threw a glass at a wall breaking it. They were being just so DUMB and obstinate and MORONIC. Thinking about it now makes me so ANGRY.

Yet reacting like that. Swearing. Any kind of physical reaction. It just turns off people, left and right.

I think he has good points. I read that email as "I'm more than willing to hear your point of view, in fact I want to hear it and listen to it, but if we're going to talk you need to cool out a bit, speak calmly, and present more sources than the ones you did"

[spuddonna]

30. I disagree with you disagreeing... :)

From my understanding, Melodybe sent out a mass email of Maher rant and a Chavez interview. This guy responded by calling her a fool for using these as arguments, and said it made him lose respect for her...

So, she was reacting emotionally to someone who had acted emotionally.

Seems pretty fair to me! :)

[Melodybe]

33. This is exactly what I sent out

E-mail title:

More coolness, this time from Bill Maher & Hugo Chavez

"Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more. There's no more money to spend--you used up all of that.

You can't start another war because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people.

Listen to your Mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out. No one's speaking to you. Mission accomplished.

Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk away. Like you did with your military service and the oil company and the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next fantasy job. How about cowboy or space man?

Now I know what you're saying: there's so many other things that you as President could involve yourself in. Please don't.

I know, I know. There's a lot left to do. There's a war with Venezuela. Eliminating the sales tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote.

But, Sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern like Billy Joel drives.

You've performed so poorly I'm surprised that you haven't given yourself a medal.

You're a catastrophe that walks like a man. Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an entire city to rising water and snakes.

On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side.

So, yes, God does speak to you. What he is saying is: 'Take a hint.' "

Bill Maher
HBO-Real Time – Friday, September 9, 2005
Bill Maher: George Must Go

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hugo Chavez at the UN Summit, he eviscerates Bush, By the way, it rules:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-un-chavez,0,3395650.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines



Enjoy

[Ravenseye]

36. What was his response?

Like....what was his response to this email, that prompted your response?

Sorry. Just trying to understand, because what you've posted so far, he doesn't seem that beligerent.

[Melodybe]

39. ARG, I can't find it

He was all calm and CONDESCENDING, he basically just said it's hard to take me seriously when I send out e-mails like that.

He said it made me seem foolish and it hurt my argument.

[Melodybe]

42. I just sent Maher's rant and a Chavez article

my flaw was sending things from people he doesn't like.

[Ravenseye]

43. ok I think I get the idea

It sounds similar to some of my inlaws. That very calm even tone that makes you want to punch them in the face.

All I can say is that I know what you were/are feeling, but that this guy sounds like you could still get through to him. Sending him this stuff though would be the same as him sending you something from Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter, yet he probably never would.

In fact many of these supernaturally calm 'reasoned' conservatives don't even like Coulter or Rush, or any of the other Freeper mouth pieces. They think both sides have gotten out of hand, generally speaking I don't know about your friend, and see anyone from one side or the other as too political and not a valuable source.

Unfortunately because of this, there are other sources who are also VERY political which they consider valid. For instance if they trust Bush, then if Bush says "We're gonna help these people heh heh heh" he'll say "Yeah but Bush has already said he's going to help these people". Etc.

It's very frustrating. I would respond by asking him to establish why Chavez and Maher are poor sources, and ask him to validate that with sources of his own. Why shouldn't we pay attention to Chavez? If he's going to dispute your sources, you should at the very least calmly ask for his.

"That's interesting. I thought that both had valid personal viewpoints. Why do you think their viewpoints are illegitimate and hurt my argument? What did they say that was innacurate?"

Put him on the defensive. Make him find his own sources, but do it real calm like.

[Melodybe]

47. Why else would I put up with him for 12 years?

I think that maybe if he could make some real friends not just his frat brothers, and find a girl that is not just marrying him for his money he would be so much happier.

I feel like god wants me to help him.

It's not just politics, I disagree with his entire way of life.

It seems shallow and elitest to me.

[Ravenseye]

48. Those are the hardest people to reach

I wish you luck. Just remember that he does have some good points as to HOW to get through to him. He's practically helping you find his weak points.

Stay calm. Try your best to not get excited, raise your voice, swear, etc. I know how hard it is. If you can't stay calm, he'll probably respect you more if you ask to continue the conversation another time. Keep it cool.

Just don't let him question your sources, and get away with it. If he says Maher is bad, ask him why. If he doesn't want to listen to what Michael Moore thinks, that's fine. You can get him with other sources he'll respect.

[Ravenseye]

35. I didn't read his response

If he responded...agressively, then I can understand her being upset. I haven't read that.

My point though is that I think, in what has been posted, he hasn't lost his 'cool' and his points are valid.

[Melodybe]

40. No he is consistantly calm and condescending

His points are not valid because he doesn't make any other than I am an over emotional idiot.

[Ravenseye]

45. See Other Post

Just use his own weapons against him. Stay very overlly calm and make him defend his position. You've stated your position, and present other people's viewpoints, and he's dismissed them. Dont' get angry, stay calm and ask him for his sources as to why those viewpoints are invalid.

[Ready4Change]

22. Sorry, but neither of you seems to "get it."

It sounds to me a classic rationalist vs emotionalist dialog. Neither of you respects the others approach, which makes it difficult to have any meaningful conversation at all.

I'd guess he can't see your reasons because all your emotions are distracting his view. And are you convinced he doesn't get it because he isn't screaming and ranting and cussing too?

To sway him to your side, you need to find information sources he respects, then highlight articles from those sources supporting your point of view. The loudness of your text can only detract from the message. No matter how passionate you are, chill. Get him the facts.

Now, if all he respects is Fox News, well, he's lost. But he doesn't sound that myoptic to me.

[Protagoras]

34. Very well said Ready4Change

nt.

As for the original poster, it may be the case that he'll never "get it" but right now you're both speaking entirely different languages so it's doubtful either of you are in a good position to understand the other if you did "get it".

I've had lots of discussions with friends with whom I've disagreed...and I can't recall one that was enriched or won in a meaningful way by swearing or threatening.

Telling someone to Fuck Off, for instance, may provide me with a moment of emotional gratification, but I've never seen it bring someone closer to my point of view.

Take a deep breath and think about whether or not the two of you share some common ground on other issues you can share...maybe that'll bring you both back to a place you can hold some dialogues that are meaningful rather than simply exercises in frustration.

Just saying :(

P.

[Ready4Change]

49. On his part...

(Replying to myself, after having read some more recent posts on this thread.)

On his part, he needs to stop criticising your tone of voice, and start applying his rationality to the facts you present.

He is, basically, using a soft form of ad-hominem attack. I've seen the Right fall back on this more and more often, as they find themselves without any rational ground to stand on.

At this point, if you can remain calm and present information from reliable sources, he might start seeing your point of view. Either that, or he'll invoke Clinton, the last bastion of Right rhetoric.

Hang in there.

[txaslftist]

24. I agree with him.

I read over what he wrote you, and I'm about as liberal as they come, but he's right.

You quote Chavez, and to those who see him as a "commie" and a "brutal dictator", you're going to come off as whacko. You quote him here and you'll be accepted and understood. When he says you've got to have your game on 24/7, he's right. The first rule of debate is Know Your Audience.

At least he acknowledged what the "whole world" knows (albeit not the dittoheads), that Bush fucked up New Orleans.

He actually seems like a reasonable guy, and if he's been your friend for 12 years, don't write him off.

We criticize Bush because he fires anyone around him who disagrees with him. Are you going to get rid of a friend because he disagrees with you? Isn't that the height of hypocracy?

[Melodybe]

28. I didn't quote Chavez, I sent and article about Chavez eviscerating *

at the UN, that is all.

[spuddonna]

32. I remembered your previous post on this...

You should edit the original to include the background - that he responded to a mass mailer and said he 'lost respect for you' and thought you were foolish for using these 'sources'. :)

[info being]

25. I think you over-reacted

The issue you are debating is not George Bush, it's the idea of "credibility." I've overcome a lot bigger differences with friends than that.

Apologize and move on.

[Balbus]

27. I'm glad you're still calling him friend, though!!

Good for you :)

[orwell]

29. Debate?

"...there's nothing we can do to change each other's minds, however we respect each other enough that we know each have valid issues and can learn from one another."

How can you "debate" someone who contradicts himself mid-sentence. He is debating himself.

The so-called "Right" will scream when they feel the pain directly. We are not there yet in this oncoming train-wreck. Unfortunately, by the time the "true believers" realize they have been totally had, we will all be swirling down the toilet bowl.

[Melodybe]

31. Thank you, he actually has a disease that occurs because you literally

hate yourself sooo much.

I feel like I could really help him with his life and his politics, he is unhappy, if he could just call shit on the asshole repub way of life that his parents, siblings, and friends are pushing on him he would be so much better off.

I want to have him over just so I can tell him that.

[orwell]

44. My Experience

I had a very good friend/mentor who was constantly pushing the Dems=Evil, Pubs=Good line. I put up with it because he was a fairly pathetic individual socially and I felt sorry for him. He was otherwise very intelligent - Mathematics and Linguistic degrees with an encyclopedic memory.

After 20+ years of coddling his misogynistic borderline psychopathic personality, I moved about 2 hours north and began a life in the country. I slowly disconnected from this fellow and have never regretted it in the slightest. There was no way he would ever change his spots and I was doing nothing more than co-dependently enabling his hateful worldview. My interactions with him transmitted his anger/hate/wounded child disorders to me, transforming me into an anger-addict.

We all project our unresolved "shadows" onto the world, searching for our faults/weaknesses/fears elsewhere in order to confront destroy them "externally." Of course this can never be done. It is what Georgie boy does when he attacks the so-called "evil-doers." He is attacking those that directly share his authoritarian, fear-laden, arrogant worldview.

Confront the shadows within so you can diffuse the anger without. Inviting him over will not accomplish this. Perhaps you need to invite yourself over for a good hard look at your own house.

Good luck. The journey within, while the most difficult, is the most rewarding.

I send you peace.

[Barbra Whiner]

37. Dump Him

Listen Honey, you need to dump this loser.  Anyone who can't
appreciate your friendship and ever-lasting loyality deserves
no less.

[StopTheMorans]

38. wow, no profile, that's really cool!

:thumbsup:

[txaslftist]

41. Are you kidding me? Barbra Whiner? You can't troll no better'n that?

Ugh. Stop the morans.

[cmd]

46. Bare with me?

What kind of invitation is that?

[spuddonna]

51. Yeah, I know...

Freud would go nuts on this guy...

[mandyky]

52. It could be worse

He could have suggested you had PMS or some other RW male chauvenist question!

[Melodybe]

53. I just can't stand that he assumes that he is correct just because

I get angry.

I am completely justified in my outrage at the state of the country.

[true_con]

54. Give it up!

Maher has been on the scene for many years. He has to be telling truth or he would have been shut off years ago. He mentions Robertson, but did you notice he didn't mention limbaugh? He's still asleep and will remain asleep.

[expatriate]

55. Don't worry about his feelings in this - what are yours?

Do you think you would enjoy further correspondence with him?

If you wouldn't - block him, don't write back, piss on him from a great height.

If you would - then write him, seek some form of communication you can tolerate.

Basically - that's it. You don't owe him anything. He's been insulting, in a veiled way - I get a distinct sense of "you're just an emotional li'l female" in there in his grand phrases (and yet, he asks you to "bare with me").

If he upsets you, set yourself free. Sometimes the best feeling in the world is finally blocking someone from your email inbox!

[screembloodymurder]

56. He's right about being careful who you quote, but

don't reply and end the friendship. Anyone who is still for Bush is a lost cause.

[true_con]

57. Absolutely!

The blood of 1900 brave souls suckered to their death and 100000 innocent iraqis is on bush's hands. Not to mention what he has done to our economy! Anyone who can still defend him is no friend.

[leesa]

58. He's an arrogant little mofo, ain't he?

His problem with Maher and Chavez is....?