Quote:
And I stated that I hadn't intended to insult and hoped that he hadn't taken it that way. Your point, Mark? Are you implying that "Sorry, I was making light of your comments" should have made it ok?

Yes. This is Off-Topic, not the Serious Political Discussion With Well-Thought-Out-Humorless Replies board.

Quote:
I'm well aware, thank you, of what Jim stated in his post. My comment was in reference to what Brad had said regarding "Democrats and people on the left" failing to "get it". You yourself say you feel he was trying to state the viewpoint of Kerry supporters and people unhappy about the outcome of the election. I'm both. So Mark, by your logic, he was referring to me.

I think Brad was speaking generally about "Democrats and people on the left", not you personally.

Quote:
And he was wrong.

Was he wrong about you personally or about "Democrats and people on the left"? Again, I do not think he was speaking about you personally.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I fully understand that about half of the voting country doesn't agree with my views. I have no trouble accepting that. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, even implied that anyone was tricked into voting for Bush.

Jim did. Brad was responding to both of you in his post.

Again, Brad made this comment about "Democrats and people on the left". Assuming this is (as usual) inclusive of anyone supporting someone other than Bush, it did include me.

Still, his comments were not directed personally at you, but at the larger group.

I am a man, and I (seemingly) am in the minority of men who do not like football. The statement: "men like football" is not false just because I am a man, and I do not like football. "All men like football" would be an incorrect statement because I am a man who does not like football.

"Democrats and people on the left" imply people who voted for Bush were tricked or too dumb to vote otherwise. This does not mean you personally if you do not believe that is the case. The media and others (including Jim, whose post started this) have made these statements.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What I do have trouble accepting is your assertion that the "values that drove the vote ARE America"..<SNIP>..It is for all of us.

Ok, so Bush voters are stupid rednecks, and Kerry voters are "not America". I think you're reading into it a bit too much.

I don't really understand the first part of your comment. I don't think I'm reading into Brad's comment at all, though. Brad said "the issues that drove the vote ARE America." Well, the issues that drove the vote were, by and large, things considered by the Christians as "moral issues". Things such as stem-cell research, gay marriage, abortion, etc. These are things on which I totally disagree with the majority, or so it would seem. Hence, I must not be "America". Could you explain how I'm reading too much into it?

I'm not sure what Brad meant exactly when he made that statement, he should respond to that. I do not think, however, that he intended to pigeonhole anyone into a category. You seem to feel personally attacked by posts that are trying to discuss the issues, talking about general groups of people. Nobody is talking about "all of us". We are talking about "most Kerry supporters" or "most conservatives".

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have no anger to get out on this, and I think it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that none of us can handle the fact that the person we voted for lost in an adult way.

Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

I would think that would be clear. The "been had" comment is, I'm sure, due to frustration.

The "Jesusland"? Not the words I would use. Would you prefer "Bible Belt"? It is no secret that Christians are quite happy with the way the election went. Maybe not all, but I would guess a majority. Ask Archbishop Chaput here in Colorado. Jim, it would seem, is not fond of the idea of America moving just a little closer to being a Theocracy. Nor am I, but then I am (the election would suggest) part of the slim minority.

I do not think that lumping Christians into one category works any better than lumping "Democrats and those on the left" together. Named religions do not represent everyone who is a Christian, and probably Archbishop Chaput and I would disagree on many issues. As for the term to use, well, I don't think Bible Belt is any better than calling Frisco "Liberal Land".

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am perfectly happy that half the country are getting what they wanted..<SNIP>..But do I not deserve to have the same freedoms as any of the people who did vote for Bush?

Brad did not start this thread, he just responded. I cannot remember any post on this BBS that started out with "Kerry must lose!", but I can remember quite a few "Throw Bush out" posts.

So anything someone says here is beyond criticizm as long as they don't "start the thread"? That's a bit silly, don't you think? And though I agree with you that people have been more likely to start a post with "Throw Bush out!", have you considered that the demographics of this board may not be the same as that of America?

My point was to say that Brad was not on the attack. He was not stating that you did not deserve to have these freedoms, or that anyone that voted for Bush is/was better than people who voted otherwise. By stating the disproportinate number of anti-Bush threads, I was trying to reinforce the point that nobody here is advocating that just because Bush won that you should have any freedoms taken away.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't agree with the media taking pot shots at Bush any more than you do. Nor did I agree with the way ANYONE ran their political campain. But to make the assumption that people agree with the media's comments just because they voted for Kerry (or Nader or whoever) is as unfair as someone accusing you of agreeing with whatever David Duke says just because you're both Christian.

I don't think it's a stretch to link some media comments with Jim's post, especially since he made most of those points in his post.

Again, Brad didn't direct his comments at Jim. He directed them at the "Democrats and people on the left". The "elitists" if you will.

I think this has been hashed over enough.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think, really, that the problem some of us have is that we're neither Democrat nor Republican. I have no political affiliation; I just want to live in a country where everybody has a say, and everybody has the same rights as everyone else. I know that may be a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream, but hey, it's my idealistic pipe-dream. I, personally, find partisan politics to be prehistoric, and I think their time has past. But hey, what do I know? I voted for the loser, right?

I registered to vote with no party affiliation. I vote on the issues and on who I believe will get the job done. I don't think these debates are about a political party as much as a point of view. Ask anyone who contributes and I bet they will not say they voted for their candidate because "They were a Republican/Democrat", but because their views matched theirs closer than the other candidate.

I think, sadly, that you may be being a bit naive here, Mark. I think it speaks well of you that you registered without party affiliation, and that you claim to have voted in the same manner. But from the people I've spoken to, if they were voting for Bush, they just went Republican right on down the line.

Sure, and there are many Democrats who do the same thing. I think it has more to do with their stance on the issues than it had to do with the candidate's affiliation. Those voters vote Republican because generally that party shares the same viewpoint as they do.

Quote:
And I think I've made the comment to you before, but I find it interesting that you chose not to comment on the idea of "everyone having the same rights as everyone else", but happily pointed out the problems with my thoughts on partisan politics.

What would you like me to say? That I believe that all those who voted for W should get slaves from the Kerry voting pool? Our entire government is based upon the idea that everyone has the same rights as everyone else. I agree with this point of view. What specifically do you think I am trying to avoid here?
_________________________
Mark Cushman