Post-election Commentaries, Thoughts - Page 17 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-04-2004, 10:24 AM   #241
Acrobat
 
U2Traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 472
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


Interesting point. Proud and stubborn.

So if I get you right, you mean people from the "backbone" like Utah never change their mind, no matter what? That they spit in the face of everyone who dares to criticize their view?

Basically that would be the unability to accept criticism. Like a child that says "I´m right because I´m right, and besides I got the bigger ..."

Is that what you mean or am I mistaken?
No, that's not what I meant. I think it's a lot more complicated then that. I think that Americans, ulitmately, just voted for what they want and believe, period. I think maybe more people, like me, which I did, would've opted to see what Kerry would do, and go against their natural inclination and beliefs. Know what I mean? I think there would've been more people who would've gone AGAINST what they sincerely believe for the sake of changem, taken a chance. But, maybe some people made it seem really icky, or too risky. I know I had to overlook some people and their views to vote for Kerry. But, then, I'm not your ordinary type of person, either. I don't know if I'm making myself clear. Sometimes I say something that I feel instinctively is right, but it takes me a while to figure out where it's coming from.
__________________

__________________
U2Traveller is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 10:31 AM   #242
Acrobat
 
U2Traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 472
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Frankly I think that anti-Bush people and Kerry supporters had done things right a lot more people who are independents, like me, or who are not super-strong Republicans, and even strong Republicans would've gone to Kerry.

They basically dug their own hole with their insults, etc. But, there are many other issues. Kerry wasn't really a better alternative. Possibly a weaker one, in many Americans' eyes.
__________________

__________________
U2Traveller is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 10:32 AM   #243
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flying FuManchu
LOL at calling people who oppose gay marriage bigots... way to go!

can you give me a reason to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't predicated upon the assumption that gay relationships are inferior to straight relationships?

i'm not trying to put words in your mouth, i have no idea what your stance on the issue is. i'd just like to hear an argument, if you've got one, that isn't predicated upon the above assumption.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 10:37 AM   #244
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 04:36 AM
Some quick thoughts on Traveller and (I think it was) Headache's point about Americans giving the finger to the world via the election-

I have long thought this. I think some Bush voters had (to them) valid policy reasons for doing so, but I believe what pushed Bush over the top was just this dynamic. Folks voted their anger, their identity, their "in group", rather than (in my view) voting the issues. Classic conflict psychology. This goes a long way to explaining why, for example, so many polls show that people don't think the economy is recoving, and they don't think Iraq is going well, and yet just over half of us voted for Bush anyhow.

Question: Is this a wise way to vote? Shouldn't the issues matter more?

We get the leaders we deserve....

Peace,
Cheryl
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 10:44 AM   #245
Acrobat
 
U2Traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 472
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sherry Darling
Some quick thoughts on Traveller and (I think it was) Headache's point about Americans giving the finger to the world via the election-

I have long thought this. I think some Bush voters had (to them) valid policy reasons for doing so, but I believe what pushed Bush over the top was just this dynamic. Folks voted their anger, their identity, their "in group", rather than (in my view) voting the issues. Classic conflict psychology. This goes a long way to explaining why, for example, so many polls show that people don't think the economy is recoving, and they don't think Iraq is going well, and yet just over half of us voted for Bush anyhow.

Question: Is this a wise way to vote? Shouldn't the issues matter more?

We get the leaders we deserve....

Peace,
Cheryl
I do believe that was a dynamic. It may have cost Kerry the election. MAY HAVE. But, like I said, I think people ultimately voted for what they really and truly think is best. Not the "in group". People, when they are pushed, when they are threatened will ALWAYS go exactly with what they believe in. It's not about being in an in group or fear, it is about wanting what's best for YOU!!! Perhaps some would've been more willing to give the Democrats a chance if they hadn't felt so threatened and insulted. They would've ultimately, taken a risk and gone outside of themselves. BUT, you cannot fail to overlook this...Kerry was also NOT a better choice.

The fact is that more Americans, period, thought Bush was the better choice, the lesser of two evils, and many Kerry supporters contributed to him looking even worse.

I think Americans are smart. They voted smartly.
__________________
U2Traveller is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 10:49 AM   #246
Refugee
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,098
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Traveller


I think Americans are smart. They voted smartly.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
__________________
U2_Guy is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 10:51 AM   #247
Acrobat
 
U2Traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 472
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2_Guy


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
That's your opinion. You do realize this, right? You don't presume you can force your opinion on everybody else, right? You do give people credit and leeway, right? You're not the only smart person in this world, right?

They had their reasons for voting Bush and they sincerely believed in them, and they felt strongly about them. I believe they voted for the best pres...and yes, I voted for Kerry. I just really began to see that Kerry really is weaker as I watched him during the elections.

*Sigh* I was just stuck right in the middle. There WAS no better alternative. I have hope for the next elections.

I believe most Americans voted the best they could. They voted smartly. They voted for themselves. They didn't need your support.
__________________
U2Traveller is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:04 AM   #248
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 03:36 AM
The idea of civil unions exists and is promoted by many people who don't support the "redefining of marriage." There are people who support these unions but don't want traditonal marriage to be redefined. Maybe they want to keep tradition, sort of like the issue of the pledge, In God We Trust. People who don't like change especially if an option is already open to gay couples.

There are also religious people (even in evangelical circles) who preach that whole love the sinner hate the sin idea. They may seem like a mythical group but they do exist. Many of these religious groups consider homosexuality as sin. (I'm not going to argue pro-con for that issue or whether its even Biblical b/c I'm not trying to make that point) but try to be loving/ accepting towards these people. Does that make them a biggot if they "disagree" but are repspectful and friendly? Bigot is a very negative word.

There are also people against the issue of homosexual marriage b/c maybe they don't even believe the institution of marriage should receive any type of tax credits, etc. "ITs already bad enough now, why open it up even further by increasing the membership in that group."

Are all of the above bigots? I just can't see it that way. There isn't some kind of absolute intolerance by every person.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:09 AM   #249
Acrobat
 
U2Traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 472
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flying FuManchu
The idea of civil unions exists and is promoted by many people who don't support the "redefining of marriage." There are people who support these unions but don't want traditonal marriage to be redefined. Maybe they want to keep tradition, sort of like the issue of the pledge, In God We Trust. People who don't like change especially if an option is already open to gay couples.

There are also religious people (even in evangelical circles) who preach that whole love the sinner hate the sin idea. They may seem like a mythical group but they do exist. Many of these religious groups consider homosexuality as sin. (I'm not going to argue pro-con for that issue or whether its even Biblical b/c I'm not trying to make that point) but try to be loving/ accepting towards these people. Does that make them a biggot if they "disagree" but are repspectful and friendly? Bigot is a very negative word.

There are also people against the issue of homosexual marriage b/c maybe they don't even believe the institution of marriage should receive any type of tax credits, etc. "ITs already bad enough now, why open it up even further by increasing the membership in that group."

Are all of the above bigots? I just can't see it that way. There isn't some kind of absolute intolerance by every person.
You are SO correct, and I'm an example of what you are talking about, and I know MANY people like you describe who "hate the sin but love the sinner" no matter what!
__________________
U2Traveller is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:15 AM   #250
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 02:36 AM
The problem, FuManchu, is that some of these gay marriage propositions also included clauses that basically outlaw gay civil unions as well. It's not just about defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It's about equal rights.

When you deny one couple the same rights another couple has simply because of their sexual orientation, you are a bigot. If you believe it is wrong, that is your belief. But once you push that belief into a law that infringes upon or denies the rights of another citizen, then you are a bigot. I'm with Irvine - I'm not backing down on this.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:16 AM   #251
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Traveller


You are SO correct, and I'm an example of what you are talking about, and I know MANY people like you describe who "hate the sin but love the sinner" no matter what!

so, every time a gay man falls in love with another gay man, or a lesbian with another lesbian, this is a sin? how? what is sinful about love?

the problem many people have is they think homosexuality is purely about sex. sex comprises as big a part in a homosexual relationship as it does in a heterosexual one. there's also love, and trust, and friendship, and all the other things that go into any human relationship. this is what homosexuality is, and i cannot understand how that is sinful.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:17 AM   #252
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
The problem, FuManchu, is that some of these gay marriage propositions also included clauses that basically outlaw gay civil unions as well. It's not just about defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It's about equal rights.

When you deny one couple the same rights another couple has simply because of their sexual orientation, you are a bigot. If you believe it is wrong, that is your belief. But once you push that belief into a law that infringes upon or denies the rights of another citizen, then you are a bigot. I'm with Irvine - I'm not backing down on this.



it's not about cultural norms, it is about legal rights.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:18 AM   #253
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Hm. Psychologically, I don´t know what to make of that.

Icky, and risky..

What is icky and risky, in American surroundings? I mean, every average middle-class American has 2 cars, 3 TVs, a house and a job. Where´s the icky and risky part when it comes to voting?

Is it that the neighborhood will talk bad of you? Is it that you fear the FBI who will check whether you´re a terrorist if you meet with friends to discuss politics every weekend? Is it that they are afraid of the extreme right, like the KKK? Is it that they have fear of not being respected at the church? Is it that they have fear of losing their face?

I really try to understand those people from a psychological point of view, because (sorry to say so, its not meant as a criticism, just as a fact) many Americans are really less open-minded than some Europeans.

Europeans will bark up every tree, no matter what. You see, we are used to protests, used to people having other opinions; we are used to clashing troops, to oppositions. We never were as afraid of communists as the Americans. Maybe because we had them right around the corner.

Americans generally buy what politicians and the media serve them (also this is not meant as criticism, but as a fact) - they have been watching more TV for decades; for example I doubt that a channel like Fox would have success in Europe, people just wouldn´t buy that high grade of manipulation. In Europe, the leaders rather tend to get critical people in all kinds of alternative movements as long as those don´t pose a real threat to the exisiting power system, so people can blow their steam off, rather than doing something useful.

But let´s get back to the point. I also think most Americans have more fear.

I will always remember when a guy from Vegas told me that everytime he sees a plane, he fears that it crashes into one of those superduper motels. I was like, what? That´s not a military target. Not an economical target. Who the fuck cares for the MGM Grand?

A European would never think so. If I think of the potential terrorist targets in my city, well ok, there´s the U.N., the airport, some governmental buildings - but that´s about it. No terrorist is interested in blowing up a skyscaper which is half as high as the average New York doghouse.

I will also remember an American woman this summer who told me that "the conservaties are right, no matter what". I have heard lots of opinions like that, not just one, without quoting them all here, I can surely agree that some Americans are stubborn (hey, we´re all stubborn, so take it easy).

I can also recall many threads here where fellow FYMers always feel personally attacked, when they weren´t attacked personally! It´s just like a crybaby mentality "oh yeah sure, we´re the bad ones, we´re all so stupid, myyyy".

Until the present day I have not been able to figure out if that´s tactics in order to get a psycho band-aid and to weaken potential criticizers, or if that´s what they really feel - because they often feel so without any real reason.

Generally, we can conclude that many Americans don´t deal with criticism like Europeans.

Some Europeans (arguably a bigger percentage than Americans, excluding young European Neo-Nazis who will rather smash your head, and many people who - also in Europe - don´t give a shit about politics) will be eager to discuss, to inform, to show you that their point is the right point. They always hope that you change your mind.

Typically the American, at some point, will just retreat because either you have hurt his holy life model, or because he is sick of the discussion and wants to turn on the telly, eat a BigMac and watch his children play basketball instead of dealing with a crook like you - but in the back of his mind he will think "Wait until I get the chance to show you my middle finger".

So, actually the question I pose is:

How can people, who are (just a little) stubborn, full of fear, proud of the social values they have inherited, who have no interest in changing their mind or even discussing about it, and who will follow most of what their leader says - how can those people be influenced, without making it too "icky and risky" to change their mind?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:27 AM   #254
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
The problem, FuManchu, is that some of these gay marriage propositions also included clauses that basically outlaw gay civil unions as well. It's not just about defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It's about equal rights.

When you deny one couple the same rights another couple has simply because of their sexual orientation, you are a bigot. If you believe it is wrong, that is your belief. But once you push that belief into a law that infringes upon or denies the rights of another citizen, then you are a bigot. I'm with Irvine - I'm not backing down on this.
Look, I'm not denying there are issues with some propositions. States all vary. I was diasagreeing with the throwing around the word bigot. And looking at how you're approaching the word bigot, the majority of people complaining about religious people/ repubs who voted Bush as being dumb, foolish, not smart, etc.... then there are bigots all around.

The word bigot is an inflammatory word if not offensive as hell.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:30 AM   #255
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
The problem, FuManchu, is that some of these gay marriage propositions also included clauses that basically outlaw gay civil unions as well. It's not just about defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It's about equal rights.
Perhaps if we address the concept of domestic arrangements in a broad sense, legal rights could be adequately defined and addressed. There are plenty of couples out there who could benefit - regardless of sexual orientation.

As many have suggested, when you try to shove an idea down someone's throat, people will choke. SF Mayor Gavin Newsom didn't exactly help the cause with his actions.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com