October 12, 2004

• Ah, crap. I was hoping "The List" was just gonna be on the sidebar.
• There's always the Daily Reason to Dispatch Bush at McSweeney's.
• It's good. Do it.
• I like the McSweeney's thing, but I was thinking just having one place to keep a bunch of links so that people could use them to draw from to appeal to different people, to save some of the worst offensives from the memory hole, or just reassure ourselves generally when the world seems to have lost its mind. side note: did anyone else Edwards host Dr. Strangelove on Turner Classic Movies last week?
• My Buchco-pushin' relatives wouldn't even read things like that. Just yesterday, while up visiting us, my father-in-law said that "It doesn't matter if you like the guy, it doesn't matter if he is good in a debate, he just has to be a good leader". This is how far his argument has fallen. It now no longer matters what Bush says, it just matters what he does. I think that about covers it for most R's. It's so ridiculous. He (F-i-L) recognizes that Bush is looking bad, he just can't bring himself to admit the reality of things.
• Winning Argument
• Fedora: good idea, but you'd be preaching to the choir for the most part. Darshon is right, many Bush supporters won't look at stuff that even remotely resembles an anti-Bush broadside. Then again, most people who support one candidate or another don't like to look at opposing data, whether it's true or not. Look at the way Kerry's inconsistencies are fairly well ignored by his supporters. Though in Kerry's case, the advantage is most people don't really like or want Kerry; they rally around the candidate that's not Bush. Kerry happens to be "it". You could really do something similar for almost any politician on the playing field.
• Convince Your Mom has some useful links, including links to official government sites. It is possible to change a Bush supporter's mind. My mother may not vote for Kerry, but I don't think she's voting for Bush. Mind you, one of the factors is the turnoff of listening to her Fox-watching, liberal-hating friend who has drunk the Bush koolaid down to the last drop. Keep that in mind when you make your argument.
• OK, f8x, you are tasked with pointing out Kerry's inconsistencies. (Feel free to link to various sites on the internets.) I am really curious to know what I might have inadvertently ignored. (I don't expect you to respond, like you never responded to my request for still-operative reasons in favour of the Iraq war.)
• fuyugare: I did so. You just never read it. Unfortunately, there seems to be only October in the archives, so it's a little difficult to link to my response.
• Did you? I stopped watching after a few weeks. You had promised me a response in a day. I'll temporarily rescind my rebuke until the site memory is restored.
• Here is my contribution- something that seems to have gone completely uncommented on: it's been reported by reputable sources that Bush and friends planned the war well in advance and never had any intention of letting diplomacy work. Bush lies about this all the time. Not clear on why this isn't an incredibly big, impeachment-level deal. I first heard of it about 6 months ago from the (conservative) Financial Times. But no American paper seemed to find it interesting. Can't find the FT thing, but here is one source.
• Anyone have links on Edwards vs. Cheney?
• I'm anti-Bush. Strongly. Anti-Howard and Blair too... but I'm not sure about this. I'm of the opinion that threads should be debates, not so much cherry-picking of information to support one side or the other. (but I'm only a baby Monkey and have not much rank to pull) That said, go for it - I'll still read!
• Should maybe have been labelled as a Curious George, perhaps with some amusing George Dubya pun in the title? Just a thought. Now - we were talking about squirrels, yes?
• I accept Kerry's incositancies, I just don't like to talk about it and ruin his chances. I think the man is just very ambitious, and I don't think he could ever be as dangerous a president as Bush. I don't mean to preach to hardcore Bush supporters, but rather people who understand its in their best interest to find out what's going on by listening to as many sides as possible rather than letting themselves be manuvered by forces they know little about. Its rediculous that Conservatives and Christians support Bush as he is a pretty shabby example of each.
• Not to confuse: I think you should listen to many sides, but I've come to the conclusion that Bush is a problem and now I just want to do something about it. Sorry if I mislabeled this thing, I didn't feel curious exactly and I was at a loss for a clever substitution. I wasn't feeling so punny either, sorry. I was actually hoping some one would offer some good counter-links and sort of took it for granted.
• I really hope that we can keep pressure up to impeach Bush for war crimes and/or crimes against the Constitution, even if he is not re-elected. It's too much to hope that he'll sit before the Hague, but at least trying him here in the U.S. would be a start.
• At least for me, you don't have to rely on sources so much as facts. There are numerous things that have been done under the current administration that I find undefendable. A few of them are: I know I have mentioned this on here numerous times, but the fact that Jose Padilla, an American citizen, has been held in custody for more than two years and still has yet to even be CHARGED with a crime still infuriates me to no end. If our government can hold someone in custody for that long without charging them with anything, that is enough to get me in favor of regime change. (And the thing is, the guy probably is guilty, but even so, why not charge him with a crime???) When I tell people what the PATRIOT Act allows the government to actually do, they don't believe me. I also like to point out that ClearChannel owns so many radio stations that they own SIX in Anchorage, Alaska. Now I'm sure that Anchorage is a cool city, but how many stations can there be in Anchorage to start with? Doesn't that seem anti-competitive? Anyone who believes in a free market place should be pissed about the Halliburton no bid contracts in Iraq regardless of any possible wrong doings by the vice-president. Those are just four easilly verifiable facts that, if one is willing to force a Bush supporter to really justify and not get off easy, will at least make said Bush supporter think about why they do support our current administration.
• What does ClearChannel have to do with the Bush administration? Be specific.
• Well, besides being a huge contributor, they've also essentially dictated telecom policy to Michael Powell at the FCC. But it's kinda an ad hominem by association. Just because guys choking out broadcast media (and billboards and concert promotion, things that no one thinks about outside of music) are huge contributors and that they've benefitted largely from Bush's administration doesn't necessarily mean the two things are related. They could just share common interests. And I hate to say it folks, because it concedes the high ground, but one Bush voter not voting because they realize that he's too slimy to pull the lever for is one fewer Kerry voter necessary. Bringing up negative points about Bush may not convince someone to vote Kerry, it may keep them home on the 2nd. So hey, the more arguments the merrier. (And remember to tell anyone and everyone with even an inkling of support for Kerry to turn out for him).
• Kerry and Bush are not the only choices. Conservatives who are put off by Bush tend to sympathize with the libertarians, who have a presidential candidate. Besides, there are plenty of races besides the presidential race. Voters can just leave that one blank and vote about local issues. Staying home is just unconscionable.
• I've flung links at people and gotten absolutely nowhere. I have come to believe the approach is all wrong. If you set yourself up as a smartypants -- here, LEARN YOU DUMMY -- no one wants to listen. I think a more psychological approach is required. Bush supporters have a greater sense of the need for unity, strength, loyalty, and tradition. Bush appeals to this. It's an emotional appeal and you can't reason someone out of it. Attacking a conservative's leader can be counterproductive. Don't think they're going to be like liberals, who are skeptical of authority, and quick to abandon their leader when he or she looks weak. When conservatives perceive that enemies are gaining ground, they rally to support the leader. But there's a possible wedge here. I think conservatives perceive a rising tide of lawlessness, at home and abroad, which is why issues of security and survival ring true for them. Make no mistake -- they are more fearful than liberals, not less. An idea? Show that Bush contributes to chaos at home and abroad. Enron and corporate crime. Destroying the environment. Undermining American power by squandering resources and credibility for a war where the objectives are at best secondary to security. It will be different for everyone though. The key to convincing someone is to first get them to open up about what their fears, values, and hopes are.
• Voters can just leave that one blank and vote about local issues. Staying home is just unconscionable. posted by fuyugare at 04:22AM UTC on October 12 But they do. There's a reason why turnout in a presidential year is higher then a non presidential years. :: As for the original point of this post, I can't provide links, but just take the argument to the other side. Or, to use the more populor parlance, use framing to your advantage. Blood for oil? Great! But oil's at $52 a barrel! WTF is up with THAT. Kick out Saddam? Great! There was more to that plan? Right? Seriously. When are we going to put the hammer on Osama?! *Wait for qualifications and other such explanations.* When are we going to put the hammer on Osama?! *Repeat as necessary.* But we could go on and on. The real task is giving some really convincing reasons to vote FOR Kerry. I still haven't gotten any good answers to that one.
• Good reasons to vote for Kerry: 1. We need someone competent to handle the mess in Iraq. Kerry has more combat experience than the entire cabal of neoconservative warmongers. This latter group should be trotted out to the Hague, if not flayed alive in burning oil. 2. He will roll back the tax cuts. People quibble that his numbers don't add up, (a) they aren't necessarily right, and (b) I'd support kerry even if he rolls back the tax cuts for everyone. A tax cut during a war is beyond insane. 3. He is damn serious about the environment. His talk about getting out of mideast oil dependence in ten years is some of the most exciting stuff I've heard a politician mention in years. 4. Embryonic stem-cell research might finally have a fighting chance. 5. All the other domestic issues (education, health care, internal security, outsourcing).
• This weeks Economist has an exhaustive look at the benefits and detractions of both candidates. Alas, most of it is premium content, so you gotta go by it, but I have a copy and I recommend it.
• f8xmulder has it right, who really wants Kerry? Not me, not at all, but he's all I have. I like Nader, I like what he stands for, but he doesn't have my vote. He would suck as pres. He is good right where he is, making waves, asking people to question everything, letting people know it is quite all right to take your government to task for a job poorly done. In my perfect world, relative to what I have experienced, I would dearly love to have Clinton back. Yep, I'd be real happy with that. Also, as for f8xmulder, who I almost always disagree with, one thing about him, he is very consistent, he does his homework, and he provides links. Given all that has been lost in the archives, I for one, will not require him to do it all again. :)
• Have you read Kerry's agenda pages, Darshon? Are you still not enthusiastic about him? Anyway, I'll go on the record as saying I'd be happy with Kerry as president. I would have preferred Dean, but I am increasingly starting to think that Kerry was the better choice. So you have one person who'd want Kerry.
• *here's hoping the archives come back soon* fuyugare: 1. Is combat experience your primary qualification? How does post-combat voting figure into that equation? 2. I just wish Kerry would pay his share of the taxes before he talks about how unfair taxes currently are for the little guy. 12.8% of over $7 million is ridiculous. 3. He still voted against Kyoto. Burninate him (but do so in an environmental manner). 4. Uh, neither presidential candidate supports banning stem cell research of any kind. Period. Under either Bush or Kerry, private stem cell research could continue on embryos or the equally useful adult and bone marrow stem cells. No proposal by either candidate would prevent this. Private funding into this research - both on embryos and adults - is flourishing. 5. Laughable premise, but I can't argue an emotional choice. My emotional choice on these counts is for Bush. No harm no foul.
• I'll catch up on this thread on the morrow. Good night everyone!
• About combat: yes, combat experience is key when waging a war. Are you not bothered at all that none of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, et al have every seen war up close? Well, you clearly aren't. You are free to pretend that they have done a brilliant job in Iraq. About taxes: the choices to me are clear — the worst reversal in budgetary condition in the history of this country, or some semblance of sanity. About the Kyoto-protocol: it has many flaws, and I don't care for it much. Why did you bring it up? What about the thing I said about mideast oil? Embryonic stem-cell research is not flourishing, except perhaps in your fantasy world. Bush has said that he is not willing to open up new lines. (The 70 odd figure he cited in the debate was wildly off.)
• Kerry has more combat experience than the entire cabal of neoconservative warmongers. And yet, as we have all heard incessantly, fighting terrorism is *not* a war, though Bush may characterize it as such. That being the case, I'm not sure that Kerry's seven months in-country 30-odd years ago qualify him any more than Bush's Alabama campaign-worker field trip does him. People quibble that his numbers don't add up, (a) they aren't necessarily right, and (b) I'd support kerry even if he rolls back the tax cuts for everyone. While your devotion is laudable, this isn't exactly an economic policy. Tax cuts *are* a good way to spur upswings in the economy. But the fine line is the deficit, which jacks up interest rates. Of course, neither of these so-called aftereffects has actually happened to any great degree, which is even more disconcerting if you ask me. I'm no fan of Bush's economics, but rolling back tax cuts willy-nilly could force the economy back into crap-city, which not coming even close to paying for the bag of goodies Kerry's got in mind (Health care in particular). Get the economy ramped up, then repeal selected taxes and MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY revamp the Code itself. His talk about getting out of mideast oil dependence in ten years is some of the most exciting stuff I've heard a politician mention in years. And also nearly impossible. without a concentrated effort to both ramp up domestic production (which Kerry wouldn't do), shunt purchases away from middles eastern sources and to Europeans and (far more important) Canadian and South American sources (which I haven't heard him say) and devote good volumes of dough and tax cuts (hmm) to industries like the automotive and (horrors) oil companies to upgun efficiency and alternative tech (industries for whom Kerry has little affinity), he's blowing a bit of smoke. Embryonic stem-cell research might finally have a fighting chance. Granted. Still gotta be funded. All the other domestic issues (education, health care, internal security, outsourcing). Education is mostly state-funded, iirc. Health care is a mess that will swallow Kerry alive, along with his entire budget; I'm not sure how Kerry plans to enhance internal security; outsourcing is small potatoes, trade-wise - better he concentrate on WTO obligations and worrying about what the hell we're going to do about China. All of which is to say, fuyugare my friend, is that neither of these mutts up is entirely up to the job, but hey, you gotta pick someone. Politicians being politicians, both of them will say any damn thing they think will get them an extra electoral vote or there, and truth be damned. Always been, always will. Just once, I'd like to see Kerry or Bush say something like "Health care? I'll be honest with you, I don't have a fucking clue what we're going to do about that. Not a clue, seriously. I mean, I'd like to see it get better, with more people isnured, and avoid butchering our pharmaceutical industries at the same time, as well as deal with the boomers getting older and sucking up health care entitlements like that giant vacuum in Spaceballs, but really? I'm fucking stumped." Whichever one says this or anything like it on any subject first has my vote.
• fuyugare, I truly hope you are right. I hope that Kerry will prove to have been the better choice (within the Democratic party).
• Pile on fuyugare! Sorry, didn't preview until I had the whole thing writ.
• Your down-to-earthism is good, Fes. I've got nothing against it. Until 2000 I would have joined you in shouting down anyone who claimed that the presidency had any real power in affecting the course of things. Bush has changed my perspective a little. I'm not devoted to Kerry. I just generally like his campaign promises. If Kerry breaks them, you may personally point at me and say 'Told you so!' I'll stare at my feet and mumble something.
• He lied in order to invade a sovereign nation, killing tens of thousands of people. If that doesn't wake people up to send Bush packing, nothing will.
• you'll get no told you so's from me, that's a promise :) Me, I wish there *was* someone out there whose promises I liked. Even Nader is off the ballot in Illinois. I disagreed with nearly everything that man said in '00, but you know what? he *meant* what he said. I like that. Same with Dean. Same with Browne. Same with that crazy little underpants-gnome Perot. If only we had someone we could vote *for*, rather than all of us voting against the other guy.
• Fes, you're onto something. The ballot should give you a nay vote. Whoever has the least nays, wins.
• This letter from 169 business profs to the prez seems like a good one for people swayed by the economy: www.openlettertothepresident.org And here is something for those who don't want to always be citing factcheck.org: spinsanity.com And something that explains why we disagree so much in the first place: www.csmonitor.com/2004/0719/p01s01-uspo.html
• Well, this pretty much proves my point. /scroll down to the 'people and the press' chart. What are the Republicans listening to? Fox News, by far the worst in the media, AFAIAC. Followed closely by the O'Reilly Factor (makes me physically ill), and Limbaugh. Frankly, Republicans deserve him. These are the three, in particular, that make me wonder if we are all living on the same planet. For it is a wonder to listen to what is being said on these programs. I would hope that the truly intelligent Republicans, I know your out there, never listen to any of these people. They're evil.
• If you have some time there are some interesting PBS Frontline documentaries available for viewing online: The War Behind Closed Doors - about the long-term "neo-con" motivations, advocacy and preparations for invading Iraq. Truth, War and Consequences - about the rush to war. Beyond Baghdad - about the difficulties of following through and "winning the peace" (which doesn't seem to be going very well these days). And depending who you are taking to... The Jesus Factor - about Bush and his Christian rebirth.
• coppermac: I think you're right, but we won't know for sure until the enquiry into whether the CIA was pressured after the election. That it was delayed till then is indication enough of who's running against Kerry. Fes: First of all, 7 months in nam with some pretty major combat experience (at least on one day) does something to a man and his opinions about war. Second, what about their use of Extraordinary Rendition? their ties to the far right of Moon and Farwell? The extention of Executive power? What about that completely uncalled for war (Kerry wasn't the one to think it up (who could?) at worst he's very a ambitious man, at best he's a representative of the people)? Though, your point does strike a chord: that people will elect Kerry and someone else's shit hits a Democrat fan and everybody will lose faith in them (though I don't like 'em much either, but the Republicans scare the shit out of me).
• I just got off the phone with my uber-christian grandmother a little while ago. She asked If I registered to vote, and I told her yes, that I had just got it done in the nick of time. We both got very nervous, trying to figure out how ask "who you gonna vote for?" because we love each other very much and don't want to fight, but it's a very charged topic and... So she asks "Democrat or Republican?" and I tell her neither, but that I am going to be voting Kerry. And she's stoked!! Yes!! With me having been in the military, she was worried that I might've picked up some of their bad mojo, while I was worried about the same thing coming from her church. Woohoo!! I'm so happy! (Since this thread is about having these kinds of conversions with people you know, I thought I'd share)
• New Yorker's guess at the Bush tax future After just skimming that, I need one of those nice anti-anxiety meds. Now, is that the purple pill?
• Mr. Knickerbocker - I think 'rich' completes the trifecta, along with uber-christian and military. I'm deciding whether to continue a fledgling effort to bring my uncle back to the liberal fold. He used to be quite the lefty, but now he's rich. I've never understood why having plenty of money makes you want even more money, but it often seems to be the case.
• After just skimming that, I need one of those nice anti-anxiety meds. Now, is that the purple pill? As I said in another thread, just make sure it doesn't come from a third world country via Canada!
• I've not found that sending links does much in the way of changing anyone's mind. What did seem to change my life-long Rebublican father's mind was a willingness on my part to admit that the Democratic party in general and Kerry in particular are a bunch of watered down ineffective dipshits (oh go ahead and jump on me, I'm used to it). I made this admission in 2000 when I voted Green and I made it again when I wrote an essay called The Liberal Eunuch and sent the link to my dad. But he was only willing to read it because we'd been talking freely to each other about our mutual disgust with both parties. We'd found a common ground. And it turned out that he was just as offended and outraged by the lies (particularly re: the war) as I was. That openness was, I'm sure, a direct result of me revealing my own disillusionment. Interestingly, he is now able to say exactly what I say about the upcoming election: I'm voting Kerry not because I believe in him buit because the alternative is far worse.
• No matter what you whiny liberal asswipes say, I will personally NEVER vote for Kerry.
• I said that about Gore in 2000.
• Y'know, honestly, one of the biggest reasons that I'm voting against Bush is that I don't like the people he has working for him, and the only way they seem to get ousted is if they criticize him. Richard Perle is an ideologue idiot, Rumsfeld is an imperious asshole, Elaine Chou is an anti-union demagogue, Wolfowitz is dangerous, Gost is unqualified and partisan. I want them gone, as they determine day-to-day policy. And one of the things to remember when looking at criticisms of Kerry is hey, I don't agree with everything he's done either. But he's better than Bush on the environment (despite voting against Kyoto), because Bush does shit like the "Clear Skies" initiative (something that deserves scare quotes if ever there was).
• I should point out that the reason I'll never vote for Kerry is that I'm not American. I was hoping someone would get all pissed off about the liberal asswipe crack, too ... It's just that other people get called "trolls" all the time, and sometimes I feel left out. My mom never really liked me either. I don't think I got enough breastmilk as a child.
• Sorry, quid. Words like "asswipe", "fucktard", "dipshit", etc. don't really register as terrible to me. I doubt they mean anything. You can call me an asswipe all you want; all I'll hear is an annoying static. Even "troll" is virtually meaningless these days. It's not the badge of honour it once was.
• Damn straight, fu. In future, I'll stick with using the term "Dick Cheney" when I want to insult people. You goddam Dick Cheney loving freak.
• I keep hoping that "jagoff" will make a comeback as an epithet. It has such a nice, Sipowicz-y lilt to it, don't you think? Not to mention "autofellatier." Someone should definitely call someone else that at some point each day.
• Just don't say it with your mouth full.
• Sorry quidnunc, but after the werewolves incident, it's going to be hard for you to phase me. When I'm reading comments, if I feel my mind start to blow, I make the swelling go down by noticing "oh, it's just the 5nuncer, out there blowin' minds again."
• You're all a bunch of autofellating trolls. With mesquite. And baked-in goodness.
• Autofellatier. Plo chop. Heh.
• Quidnunc's problem isn't that he didn't get enough breastmilk as a child, it's that he was breastfed until he was 15. True story.
• I've recently become fond of the term "douchebag" as an epithet.
• Quidnunc's problem isn't that he didn't get enough breastmilk as a child, it's that he was breastfed until he was 15. True story. I thought that was the last emperor of China?
• Well, I didn't want to brag ... However - if anyone here would like to help me out - I would gladly exchange my rightful claim to the Jade Throne for one warm, nutritious mouthful of sweet, sweet titty juice. Email's in the profile.