the difference between the left and the right

polaris · August 2008

catch22 wrote:

says the canadian.

i used these same arguments in 2000 when it was bush vs gore. you know what? they're bullshit arguments. if you think gore's election would not have vastly changed america's response to 9/11, you are not living in reality. what this is is the same tired rhetoric from hipster leftists who want to talk about sticking it to the man in between bong rips and concert tickets paid for by their parents or their job as professional protesters. we're in the same position now. 2 new candidates coming off a 2-term president. those on the left still whining about how they're both the same and they wish nader or kucinich could get in and really change things (nevermind that most of what they want changed is congress's territory).

neocons talk about how scared they are that we'll be attacked if obama gets elected. i'm a helluva lot more worried about what would happen if a bomb does go off on mccain's watch. who do you want in control of america then? because i can assure you, their responses would be as different as bush's was from what gore's would have been.

i will concede that if gore was president there wouldn't be iraq (nor 9/11 for that matter) ... but it does beg the question why the democrats would allow the election to be stolen from them twice ...

and of these 8 years - we can blame so much on bush but the dems have been equally complicit in approving many things that are now seen as being detrimental to the states ...

catch22 · August 2008

polaris wrote:

i will concede that if gore was president there wouldn't be iraq (nor 9/11 for that matter) ... but it does beg the question why the democrats would allow the election to be stolen from them twice ...

and of these 8 years - we can blame so much on bush but the dems have been equally complicit in approving many things that are now seen as being detrimental to the states ...

you're joking right? why would the dems allow an election to be stolen? why would a woman allow herself to be raped? come on! (in Gob voice

)

why did they lose? for the reasons i've listed here. gore blew that election. a weak opposition candidate and he's riding on the success of a popular 2-term ticket. what went wrong? ralph nader and the left tore him apart. his campaign was a mess from day one because he was as busy fighting off the left as he was the right. ditto for kerry. how do you think he got the flip-flopper tag? because he had to show the country he could do a better job managing defense than bush had, and when he tried, his own party eviscrated him for being pro-war (which is nonsense, but it's typical of the histrionics of the left). thus he was constantly trying to explain himself and getting tied up and voila... you've got an unelectable flip-flopper who can't beat the weakest incumbent president ever.

yes, there were voting irregularities and they need to be explored. but when it comes down to it, both gore and kerry lost because they were being attacked on both sides. this does not happen on the right. or at least not recently. so all bush had to do was say nothing. he wasn't going to lose supporters to kerry and certainly wasn't going to gain any. he just managed to mobilize his people behind him, while the left was busy ripping their candidates apart and ensuring that nobody mobilized in support of kerry or gore.

you're right though, the dems have been pretty hopeless and foundering these past few years. but can you blame them? how confusing must it be to be a dem right now? you're damned no matter what you do, and you cannot win even with your own supporters. you try to take some steps towards a compromise solution and your own supporters destroy your for selling out or compromising too much. you take a hard line that nobody in america will accept and your supporters tear you apart for not getting anything done. it's lose-lose for them. it's no wonder they've thrown in the towel.

fuck · August 2008

catch22 wrote:

i was one of those liberals. i campaigned for nader in 2000. i saw the people making these arguments. hell i used the "im not voting lesser of two evils" argument myself! that's not what this is about. if ralph nader was running for the dems, these same people backing him now would be ripping him apart for his stock portfolio or the fact that the dems get money from companies. it's not about issues as much as it is about posturing and bucking the status quo. these folks fancy themselves 60s style hippies in the new millenium, and it's just sad.

but the disagreement is my point. these people will not accept disagreement. unless the candidate has a platform cribbed from che guevera, they will not be happy. they could diagree 100% with mccain, agree with obama 75%, and will still vote for nader (who they, when they really think about it, only agree 75% with too) just because they act like they could NEVER support the election of someone who disagrees with them on that 25%. in doing so, they fuck this country over by refusing to elect someone who would truly do the country some good because they've taken a more nuanced view of their pet issue.

you know, you really like to think of your assumptions as fact.

catch22 · August 2008

_outlaw wrote:

you know, you really like to think of your assumptions as fact.

i really like to think of my experiences as helpful in understand the sociology of this.

did you campaign for nader in 2000? do you have these experiences to compare to what you see happening now? what were you, 12 during that election? i know you want to think you're part of something special and unique right now, but that's not the case. this is the exact same rhetoric and nonsense that i was responsible for promoting 8 years ago.

decides2dream · August 2008

_outlaw wrote:

you know, you really like to think of your assumptions as fact.

perhaps he does....me, i just think it's a pretty damn good assumption.

seriously, i do *get* voting your conscience, the candidate you most believe in, support, who you MOST want to see as president. i do, i really do. however, i also believe there are many who simply like to follow the other crowd....making a 'statement'..or whatever.....with no real grasp of the consequences. then again, i also don't view obama as the lesser of two evils, not even close...so that might skew my perspective somewhat. the initial premise for this thread is all pretty damn good assumptions.

mammasan · August 2008

catch22 wrote:

i was one of those liberals. i campaigned for nader in 2000. i saw the people making these arguments. hell i used the "im not voting lesser of two evils" argument myself! that's not what this is about. if ralph nader was running for the dems, these same people backing him now would be ripping him apart for his stock portfolio or the fact that the dems get money from companies. it's not about issues as much as it is about posturing and bucking the status quo. these folks fancy themselves 60s style hippies in the new millenium, and it's just sad.

but the disagreement is my point. these people will not accept disagreement. unless the candidate has a platform cribbed from che guevera, they will not be happy. they could diagree 100% with mccain, agree with obama 75%, and will still vote for nader (who they, when they really think about it, only agree 75% with too) just because they act like they could NEVER support the election of someone who disagrees with them on that 25%. in doing so, they fuck this country over by refusing to elect someone who would truly do the country some good because they've taken a more nuanced view of their pet issue.

but maybe that's the point. maybe they like having dubya and mccain in office for the same reason terrorists love us being iraq. makes it easy to whine and complain and blame the bad guys without having to have any responsibility for what's happening.

I see where you are coming from and I definitely agree. The right/Republicans are by far more organized and will support their candidate even if they don't necessarily agree with him on all fronts. Let's face it though the Democratic party has been in trouble for years now.

catch22 · August 2008

mammasan wrote:

I see where you are coming from and I definitely agree. The right/Republicans are by far more organized and will support their candidate even if they don't necessarily agree with him on all fronts. Let's face it though the Democratic party has been in trouble for years now.

undoubtedly. it seemed the republicans were on the verge of a split for a moment there, but it just kind of dissipated in the hillary-obama drama. the problems with the democrats run deep. the left in general is just too reactionary to be stable and organize and build strong alliances.

sweetpotato · August 2008

catch22 wrote:

i was one of those liberals. i campaigned for nader in 2000. i saw the people making these arguments. hell i used the "im not voting lesser of two evils" argument myself! that's not what this is about. if ralph nader was running for the dems, these same people backing him now would be ripping him apart for his stock portfolio or the fact that the dems get money from companies. it's not about issues as much as it is about posturing and bucking the status quo. these folks fancy themselves 60s style hippies in the new millenium, and it's just sad.

but the disagreement is my point. these people will not accept disagreement. unless the candidate has a platform cribbed from che guevera, they will not be happy. they could diagree 100% with mccain, agree with obama 75%, and will still vote for nader (who they, when they really think about it, only agree 75% with too) just because they act like they could NEVER support the election of someone who disagrees with them on that 25%. in doing so, they fuck this country over by refusing to elect someone who would truly do the country some good because they've taken a more nuanced view of their pet issue.

but maybe that's the point. maybe they like having dubya and mccain in office for the same reason terrorists love us being iraq. makes it easy to whine and complain and blame the bad guys without having to have any responsibility for what's happening.

now, that's some good shit, right there.

and where ARE those hippies, anyway? they seem to be conspicuously absent from this thread, at least what i've read of it. perhaps they're off leafleting for nader at the DNC.

MonsterOfTheMidway · August 2008

The Left is all like "Do Do Do Do Do Do Do!"

and the Right is all like "Eh Eh Eh Eh Eh Eh Eh."

SpreadtheJAM · August 2008

were right vs. youre wrong

polaris · August 2008

catch22 wrote:

you're right though, the dems have been pretty hopeless and foundering these past few years. but can you blame them? how confusing must it be to be a dem right now? you're damned no matter what you do, and you cannot win even with your own supporters. you try to take some steps towards a compromise solution and your own supporters destroy your for selling out or compromising too much. you take a hard line that nobody in america will accept and your supporters tear you apart for not getting anything done. it's lose-lose for them. it's no wonder they've thrown in the towel.

but you can't blame people on the so-called "left" ... just because those on the "right" will vote for whoever is in there regardless doesn't mean those on the "left" should ...

the democrats have been absolutely useless the last 8 years ... they have not done anything to hold this administration accountable for anything ...

fanch75 · August 2008

catch22 wrote:

what this is is the same tired rhetoric from hipster leftists who want to talk about sticking it to the man in between bong rips and concert tickets paid for by their parents or their job as professional protesters.

Hilarious!

MonsterOfTheMidway · August 2008

SpreadtheJAM wrote:

were right vs. youre wrong

If this proves anything, it's that the right has awful grammatical skills.

decides2dream · August 2008

MonsterOfTheMidway wrote:

If this proves anything, it's that the right has awful grammatical skills.

is punctuation considered grammar?

just askin'...

and while we may acknowledge the differences between right and left...or simply between parties since many do not consider the dems 'left' anymore in any case......what to do, what to do? who can come in and fix this, for lack of a better term...to wake up the party that they are indeed the engineers of their own destruction?

it IS ridiculously sad. i truly wanted al gore to become president. i think he would've made an excellent president. i thought he'd have it in the bag. apparently i was horribly mistaken, and it is due to many gaffes made...so wtf....where is the learning curve here?

and on that note....have a good evening all, my workday is quickly, happily, coming to a close. until tomorrow.....:)

writersu · August 2008

catch22 wrote:

i was one of those liberals. i campaigned for nader in 2000. i saw the people making these arguments. hell i used the "im not voting lesser of two evils" argument myself! that's not what this is about. if ralph nader was running for the dems, these same people backing him now would be ripping him apart for his stock portfolio or the fact that the dems get money from companies. it's not about issues as much as it is about posturing and bucking the status quo. these folks fancy themselves 60s style hippies in the new millenium, and it's just sad.

but the disagreement is my point. these people will not accept disagreement. unless the candidate has a platform cribbed from che guevera, they will not be happy. they could diagree 100% with mccain, agree with obama 75%, and will still vote for nader (who they, when they really think about it, only agree 75% with too) just because they act like they could NEVER support the election of someone who disagrees with them on that 25%. in doing so, they fuck this country over by refusing to elect someone who would truly do the country some good because they've taken a more nuanced view of their pet issue.

but maybe that's the point. maybe they like having dubya and mccain in office for the same reason terrorists love us being iraq. makes it easy to whine and complain and blame the bad guys without having to have any responsibility for what's happening.

very well put.

fuck · August 2008

catch22 wrote:

i really like to think of my experiences as helpful in understand the sociology of this.

did you campaign for nader in 2000? do you have these experiences to compare to what you see happening now? what were you, 12 during that election? i know you want to think you're part of something special and unique right now, but that's not the case. this is the exact same rhetoric and nonsense that i was responsible for promoting 8 years ago.

lol
"part of something special and unique right now"
again, more assumptions from you. I don't feel part of something special and unique supporting Obama right now, at all.
and cheap insults mean shit, I was young in 2000, didn't stop me from campaigning, especially since my family was one of the biggest contributors to a candidate, and no, it wasn't Nader.

to say it's "nonsense" is ridiculous. personally, the people I know who support Nader would also support him if he were the Democratic candidate. they aren't just against the 2-party system, they're against the fact that we're left to choose between 2 candidates they don't like. surprisingly, they don't agree with obama on 95% of his policies. In fact, I support Obama and I probably don't even agree with 75% of his policies, it just takes some more than others.
you can't call it nonsense, the idea is certainly a great one.

maybe you had some shitty friends or something, but I know plenty of people who don't fit your pathetic stereotype.

fuck · August 2008

polaris wrote:

but you can't blame people on the so-called "left" ... just because those on the "right" will vote for whoever is in there regardless doesn't mean those on the "left" should ...

the democrats have been absolutely useless the last 8 years ... they have not done anything to hold this administration accountable for anything ...

exactly. just because the "left" isn't willing to accept whatever they throw at us doesn't mean they should feel any blame for doing so.

I thought the "left" was all about preaching for who you truly want.

SpreadtheJAM · August 2008

MonsterOfTheMidway wrote:

If this proves anything, it's that the right has awful grammatical skills.

I didn(apostrophe)t feel like throwing in apostrophes dickless.

Yes it's true this man has no dick.

MonsterOfTheMidway · August 2008

SpreadtheJAM wrote:

I didn(apostrophe)t feel like throwing in apostrophes dickless.

Yes it's true this man has no dick.

Ghostbusters.

SpreadtheJAM · August 2008

MonsterOfTheMidway wrote:

If this proves anything, it's that the right has awful grammatical skills.

This was a general statement anyway how can you judge what side i am based on that comment? Maybe i'm conservative maybe i'm wrong, maybe i'm independent.

the difference between the left and the right

Comments

Categories