Post-election Commentaries, Thoughts - Page 18 - 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, 11:31 AM   #256
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 08:45 AM
I'm not intending to throw it around casually, nor am I suggesting that anyone who voted for Bush is a bigot - I think my definition is pretty specific, actually.

If you turn your belief into a law, or are in favor of a law that would infringe upon or deny equal rights to another because of their sexual orientation, then you are a bigot.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:33 AM   #257
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader



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.

sadly, this is *exactly* what happened. based upon the exit polls that showed republican voters putting "moral values" at the top of their voting agenda, and a Republican platform "moral values" agenda that was carefully constructed around opposition to gay marriage (or even civil unions), abortion, and stem cell research, it is clear that these issues won GWB the election.

how these issues trump Iraq, health care, and the economy ... i don't know. maybe a Bush voter who voted on the above "moral values" can explain it to us. because the Blue States -- i live in Washington, DC and we went 90% for Kerry -- as well as the rest of the Western world would really like to know.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:33 AM   #258
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: 09:45 AM
Quote:
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.
Again this statement opens up whole floodgate of issues concerning incest, beastiality, polygamy, etc... Of course, I know a lot of people support the rights of those who believe in such things, but I don't... Does that make me a bigot? I guess from that assessment, I am. Hey, maybe I shouldn't be arguing about the use of the word bigot.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:35 AM   #259
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
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.
That brings up an interesting point. A friend of mine believes that if Massachusetts and San Francisco waited until after the election to bring the issue of gay marriage to the forefront, then Kerry probably would have won. I'm inclined to agree with him.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:41 AM   #260
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: 09:45 AM
Again.... IMO people are overrating the morals issues. The exit polls also showed Kerry stomping Bush in this election. To some degree, especially, today... I don't think moral values were the main issue. It may have contributed to Kerry's loss but to say Bush won primarily b/c of morals is just too simplistic, just as people who are being pretty offensive are over-generalizing the intelligence, the mindset of the Bush voter.

Pundits and the media need something to latch onto in order to explain how Bush won considering the year he was having. Hell, I'm surprised to some degree that Bush won, and how he won rather convincingly.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:41 AM   #261
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flying FuManchu


Again this statement opens up whole floodgate of issues concerning incest, beastiality, polygamy, etc... Of course, I know a lot of people support the rights of those who believe in such things, but I don't...


Please tell me you're not honestly comparing homosexuality to beastiality.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:42 AM   #262
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flying FuManchu


Again this statement opens up whole floodgate of issues concerning incest, beastiality, polygamy, etc...

comparing homosexuality to crimes is quite insulting.

the difference is that no one is harmed by a homosexual relationship, whereas beastiality and incest involve acts that are harmful because at least one of those involved is unable to give consent -- your dog cannot consent -- or has been forbidden by law due to the high rate of birth defects. in those situations, someone is clearly harmed by the act.

as for polygamy ... in all honesty, the libertarian in me says "why not?" but as it stands, marriage has always been between 2 people. it also bothers me the words "redefining" marriage. why don't we call it "expanding" marriage.

the right wing does this well, defining the terms of the debate. for example, abortion. really, there are two sides: pro-choice and anti-choice, since the issue isn't about whether abortion is wrong or whether or not a fetus is human life but about whether or not it should be legal.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:44 AM   #263
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen




Please tell me you're not honestly comparing homosexuality to beastiality.
I would doubt that FuManchu is making the comparison.

The underlying issue is how do we address the numerous laws that restrict personal freedoms based on some sort of moral code. How can we reconcil that on a consistant basis?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:44 AM   #264
Acrobat
 
U2Traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 472
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
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?
Lol. Your conclusion is funny if I don't agree with your description of the people.

Perhaps by having a truly good candidate, bottom-line. Then most would even overlook their supporters. I did, but that's because I am a risk-taker. But, it WAS a big risk to vote for Kerry. I think, bottom-line, the only problem was that Kerry just wasn't good enough.

I believe that Kerry is probably wondering that about himself at one point or another, too.
__________________
U2Traveller is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:46 AM   #265
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


That brings up an interesting point. A friend of mine believes that if Massachusetts and San Francisco waited until after the election to bring the issue of gay marriage to the forefront, then Kerry probably would have won. I'm inclined to agree with him.
This, I believe, goes to the point of how the left frames their arguments. The practice of "you're a bigot, prove me wrong" won't win one vote. Looking at the ultimate goal and describing it in such a way that you get cross cultural buy-in will bring you an election.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:46 AM   #266
Acrobat
 
U2Traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 472
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
I'm not intending to throw it around casually, nor am I suggesting that anyone who voted for Bush is a bigot - I think my definition is pretty specific, actually.

If you turn your belief into a law, or are in favor of a law that would infringe upon or deny equal rights to another because of their sexual orientation, then you are a bigot.
No, you're not. That's just too cut and dried. I don't believe that most people who voted for Bush went there just to vote on these other amendments. They went to vote for Bush, PERIOD. They had something to say and they said it, just like everybody else. Period. Nothing about bigotry. Those issues just happened to be on some ballots. I know that it was NO BIG ISSUE HERE!!! Maybe they should've made it a bigger one.
__________________
U2Traveller is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:47 AM   #267
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: 09:45 AM
No... but its about the issue of relationships and people's rights... Its taking what you said about, "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." That can't be a good use/standard of the word bigot.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:47 AM   #268
Acrobat
 
U2Traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 472
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



sadly, this is *exactly* what happened. based upon the exit polls that showed republican voters putting "moral values" at the top of their voting agenda, and a Republican platform "moral values" agenda that was carefully constructed around opposition to gay marriage (or even civil unions), abortion, and stem cell research, it is clear that these issues won GWB the election.

how these issues trump Iraq, health care, and the economy ... i don't know. maybe a Bush voter who voted on the above "moral values" can explain it to us. because the Blue States -- i live in Washington, DC and we went 90% for Kerry -- as well as the rest of the Western world would really like to know.
No, Kerry being a bad candidate lost the election. Stop trying to blame everyone else.
__________________
U2Traveller is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:50 AM   #269
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Traveller


No, you're not. That's just too cut and dried. I don't believe that most people who voted for Bush went there just to vote on these other amendments. They went to vote for Bush, PERIOD. They had something to say and they said it, just like everybody else. Period. Nothing about bigotry. Those issues just happened to be on some ballots. I know that it was NO BIG ISSUE HERE!!! Maybe they should've made it a bigger one.
Excuse me, but where did I say that most people who voted for bush went to vote mainly for the other amendments? Oh that's right, I didn't say that. I am specifically addressing the issue of these amendments (and if you had read the first paragraph of what you quoted, you'd realize that).

Although you can't deny that the Republicans used gay marriage as a wedge issue to energize their base.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-04-2004, 11:52 AM   #270
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: 09:45 AM
I'm not going to deny the Repubs used gay marriage as a wedge issue.
__________________

__________________
Flying FuManchu 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 09:45 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