[subego]

Simple, and scared.

Simple, meaning one needn't look too deeply to ascertain his motivations.

Scared, meaning he assaults that which frightens him.

As should be patently obvious, he will never tell you he's frightened, nor will he show he is frightened.

You are frightened by what you don't understand. He doesn't understand Democrats.

If you are a Democrat, think of whatever nasty motivations you have ascribed to Bush for why he treats you the way he does. Ask yourself if that makes more sense than him being genuinely scared shitless of you.

Assuming you even bother trying to divine his motivations any more. I think a lot of people have stopped trying to understand him. I leave the conclusion that one can draw from the fact that Democrats are genuinely scared shitless of George Bush as an exercise for the reader.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

You are frightened by what you don't understand.

Since this is the most untrue statement ever bandied about in the field of politics, your argument fails.

The argument also fails on the basis of "if he understood us, he'd like us" - another blatant lie which those on the left tend to tell themselves in order to maintain their delusions.

Imagine, for a moment, that Bush doesn't dislike the Dems because he doesn't understand them. But rather, he dislikes the Dems because he thinks they're a bunch of mindless assholes. Picture that and you'd be closer to the truth.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But rather, he dislikes the Dems because he thinks they're a bunch of mindless assholes. Picture that and you'd be closer to the truth.

While I grant you Bush may have an innate understanding of what it is to be a mindless asshole, if your claim above is true, I can't imagine a more damning criticism of his competence.

I mean, if you can't placate a bunch of mindless assholes...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I mean, if you can't placate a bunch of mindless assholes...

It's almost impossible for a reasonable man to be able to placate a bunch of mindless assholes - it's like herding cats. Their lack of reasoning (and thus the ability to be placated by sound reasoning) is what makes them mindless assholes in the first place.

[besson3c]

Doofy,

Do you realize that US Democrats are different than UK leftists? As a Libertarian, you ought to be appalled as to some of the things the Republicans have been trying to do here.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

it's like herding cats.

Which you do quite nicely with catnip. Next please.



Oh, and what Besson3c said.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you realize that US Democrats are different than UK leftists?

Only in degree, not in sentiment.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As a Libertarian, you ought to be appalled as to some of the things the Republicans have been trying to do here.

I am. But what's that got to do with owt?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Only in degree, not in sentiment.

Interesting how the US left can manage to be lesser in degree in a much more permissive country. There must be something special about the American brand of mindless assholeism.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Interesting how the US left can manage to be lesser in degree in a much more permissive country. There must be something special about the American brand of mindless assholeism.

Yes, there's something special about it. And it's to do with not easily being able to rewrite the constitution.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes, there's something special about it. And it's to do with not easily being able to rewrite the constitution.

As long as you acknowledge that our form of government has bred a superior form of mindless asshole.


On topic, your "herding cats" analogy seems off. Many presidents have accomplished the task.

Strangely enough, Clinton was able to do it while being a mindless asshole at the same time. I think you're really overestimating the difficulty. All Clinton needed was a ball of yarn.

Either way, you seem to agree with at least part of the conclusion of my psychoanalysis, in that Democrats are something that Bush fears, and is something he attacks out of that fear... Yes?

[Face Ache]

I figure in the US both sides are scared of each other.

The Left far outnumbers the Right (hence no compulsory voting).

The outnumbered Right are nucking futs and are heavily armed.

[ebuddy]

I don't think he's as much scared of them as he secretly wants to be appreciated by them. His governorship was not divisive at all. In fact, his ability to reach across the aisle was considered a strength of his. Now I'm not so sure. He's done everything Dems wanted him to do, have done, and would've done again such as;

- go to war in Iraq
- sell us the WMD/Saddam-threat argument
- sign every spending endeavor that came across his desk
- send some AIDS funding abroad and hang out with Bono
- Spy on suspect US citizens

The only Republican thing he's done is give minorities more opportunity in his cabinet. The only truly Conservative thing he's done is try to give thrust to some faith-based initiatives and lower taxes to bolster and maintain an extremely strong economy through perhaps the most volatile time in our history.

Other than that, I can't imagine what would've gone too differently. Psychoanalysis? Demican.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

I figure in the US both sides are scared of each other.

The Left far outnumbers the Right (hence no compulsory voting).

The outnumbered Right are nucking futs and are heavily armed.

Get the man a prize!

However, I'm trying to move away from the "nucking futs" argument, just as I'm trying to move away from the "mindless asshole" argument.

Both are ultimately dismissive, and I think that dismissal is at the core of a gigantic problem.


Nucking scared is more like it. Not just of Democrats, but of terrorists too.

Bush is such a cowboy, it becomes very easy to think of his cowboy like behavior as an example of him being a straight shooter. I've heard a million reasons why the Democrats think we went into Iraq. Not one of them is that terrorists dropped a load in his undies. Al Qaeda tried to kill him, personally. Rumsfeld too for that matter.

I'm sure lots of factors went into how they reacted to this, and how that ultimately led us to where we are now, but I'll be damned if the motivations the Democrats normally provide (greed, thirst for power) make more sense than being genuinely afraid of these people.

Likewise with the Democrats themselves. I'm looking for a better rationale for why the Republicans thought it was a good idea to take a lawnmower to the Democrats. Previous to coming to my above conclusion, it was that they were trying to maximize short-term gains at the cost of a long-term loss. This just didn't make any sense.

It seems much easier to account for observed phenomena if you imagine their point of view as being afraid of the Democrats. As in, "if we let these people get their way, our whole country is doomed".

If you think about it, this is certainly the subtext of their tactics. Note all the claims of "traitor" and the declaration of dissent as un-American. Most Democrats know this claim is bullshit, and since they assume the Republicans know it's bullshit, Democrats ascribe a far nastier motivation to Republican behavior than ignorance.

I'm beginning to think that's what it is though. Republicans just don't get Democrats, and vice-versa.

[subego]

I'm afraid this doesn't give me too much confidence in the ability of Republicans to understand Democrats.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- go to war in Iraq

Since Vietnam, the Democrats have time and time again displayed the fact that at best they tolerate war. As I have said on more than one occasion, the Democrats needed to be continually romanced if they were to continue their support.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- sell us the WMD/Saddam-threat argument

Hmm. I don't think the PR flub of the century qualifies as doing what the Democrats "wanted"

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- sign every spending endeavor that came across his desk

They like this on principle, but I can't say he did a good job of being even with the pork.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- send some AIDS funding abroad

You do recall that the Democrats are the party of Secular Humanism, and therefore had major problems with the abstinence requirements?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

and hang out with Bono

Uhh, when you want to hang out with Bono, seeing someone you hate get to hang out with him isn't a feelgood.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Spy on suspect US citizens

From a global historical perspective, the left would be normally be the party interested in authoritarian policy, but, I would imagine partially due to the poor civil rights record of the Republicans, this has been inverted for decades. The net result is that the Democrats want you to have to jump though a bunch of hoops to do this, and maintaining the hoops is more important to them than protecting us from external threats. Bush scores a big fat goose-egg in this department.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Demican.

I had never heard this before. Good word.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm afraid this doesn't give me too much confidence in the ability of Republicans to understand Democrats.

Not to sound snide, but how well does anyone truly understand someone else. We only understand them based on what they display.

Since Vietnam, the Democrats have time and time again displayed the fact that at best they tolerate war. As I have said on more than one occasion, the Democrats needed to be continually romanced if they were to continue their support.

In many cases military action initiated by a (D) finds Democrats more tolerant of it. This certainly could be due in part to the (D) doing a better job of whooing the collective (D)'s. The "hate and oppose all aspects of one man, Bush" started when he supposedly "stole" the election from Al Gore. There are those (based on their display) that would like to see Bush fail so badly (including Iraq) that they forget what implications these failures have on the rest of us.

Hmm. I don't think the PR flub of the century qualifies as doing what the Democrats "wanted"

You recall this particular 'PR flub' began with Bush Sr.'s call against Saddam. A call that rang through the Clinton Administration with similar sentiment echoing back.

They like this on principle, but I can't say he did a good job of being even with the pork.

That's the funny thing about pork, it's rarely even. Why would I care about a fishery in California? That kind of thing.

You do recall that the Democrats are the party of Secular Humanism, and therefore had major problems with the abstinence requirements?

While many Democrats are 'secular humanists', the electable ones are typically the ones that claim Christian faith. You haven't heard Hillary talk at a Baptist Church? She turns into Harriet Tubman all of a sudden. How about Al Gore's fallacious tone-change as if he's Cedric the Entertainer when he gets in front of the Baptist crowd. It kills me. They use the slang and project this "characature" on the black community as if they've learned it from a book disseminated in their gated community. It's so patently stilted, fraudulent, and fake that I can't believe it hasn't been railed on by the minority community. In fact, which Democrat has not been pictured coming out of Church on Sunday? They may think they're secular humanists, but they seem to practice Christianity as earnestly as the elected Republicans do to get that vote. Why?

Because contrary to what you and FaceAche agreed on earlier, most people are to the right-not left. Most people are Conservative, not liberal, and most people voted against Republicans, not for Democrats.

Uhh, when you want to hang out with Bono, seeing someone you hate get to hang out with him isn't a feelgood.

Do you want to hang out with Bono?

From a global historical perspective, the left would be normally be the party interested in authoritarian policy, but, I would imagine partially due to the poor civil rights record of the Republicans, this has been inverted for decades.

The poor civil rights record of the right is mostly a successful demonization of Republicans by the left. The left's track record on civil rights is one of "talk", not "action". A great many minority are starting to ask themselves what on earth the Democrats have done for them. Strong on rhetoric, weak on action. This has led to a Republican constituency that has again reached out to the minority more effectively, recently and will continue to do so. Minorities happen to be Conservative as well and also happen to be quite religious, which will eventually lead them the natural course... Conservatism. They don't know it yet, but when they get it, they can't keep quiet about it. What is it they should know?

- Republicans were specifically formed to combat Democrat ideals so nicknamed; slaveocrats.
- Passing of the Confiscation Act, over strong Democrat opposition
- Emancipation Proclamation, (over strong Democrat opposition)
- 1875 Civil Rights act
- drafted the concepts of due process of law, and equal protection of the laws
- 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (of which not one Democrat voted in favor)
- 1869, granting rights of blacks to vote. 98% of Republicans favored, 97% of Democrats voted against it. This verbiage eventually led to...
- 1964 Civil Rights Act, based on original Republican draft and supported in vote by a significantly higher majority of Republicans than Democrats.
- Every single African-American in Congress, House and Senate, until 1935 was a Republican.
- 1872, first black governor in Louisiana, Republican.
- first Hispanic U.S. Senator was elected from New Mexico in 1928. Republican.
- First Hispanic governor of California; Romualdo Pacheco in 1875. Republican.
- Led rights for women, Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Republicans.
- Co-founders of NAACP and suffragists, Ida Wells and Mary Terrell. Republicans.
- The list goes on and on and on...

Poor Civil Rights history of the Republicans??? On the contrary, there'd be no civil liberties if it weren't for Republicans. This is the plain and simple truth. The left has done a great job of demonizing the right, but their history is tainted by the KKK of which they still have a member who enjoys political status among them; Robert Byrd.

The net result is that the Democrats want you to have to jump though a bunch of hoops to do this,

Let me stop you here. They want you to jump through a bunch of hoops to do this while doing little on their own.

and maintaining the hoops is more important to them than protecting us from external threats. Bush scores a big fat goose-egg in this department.

The Civil Rights department (more minorities in his Cabinet than any sitting (D) I can recall) or the protecting us from external threats department? The external threats department has been neglected by a host of folks regardless of party affiliation.

I had never heard this before. Good word.

Well thank you sir. I was going to use "republicrat" next. Not my words though.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why would I care about a fishery in California?

I wouldn't expect anything more from a Republican.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They may think they're secular humanists, but they seem to practice Christianity as earnestly as the elected Republicans do to get that vote. Why?

While I certainly have my disagreements about religion in general, it doesn't particularly matter much if a candidate is Christian or not. I draw the line when they bring that crap into the White House and start making policies around it.

- Republicans were specifically formed to combat Democrat ideals so nicknamed; slaveocrats.
- Passing of the Confiscation Act, over strong Democrat opposition
- Emancipation Proclamation, (over strong Democrat opposition)
- 1875 Civil Rights act
- drafted the concepts of due process of law, and equal protection of the laws
- 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (of which not one Democrat voted in favor)
- 1869, granting rights of blacks to vote. 98% of Republicans favored, 97% of Democrats voted against it. This verbiage eventually led to...
- 1964 Civil Rights Act, based on original Republican draft and supported in vote by a significantly higher majority of Republicans than Democrats.
- Every single African-American in Congress, House and Senate, until 1935 was a Republican.
- 1872, first black governor in Louisiana, Republican.
- first Hispanic U.S. Senator was elected from New Mexico in 1928. Republican.
- First Hispanic governor of California; Romualdo Pacheco in 1875. Republican.
- Led rights for women, Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Republicans.
- Co-founders of NAACP and suffragists, Ida Wells and Mary Terrell. Republicans.
- The list goes on and on and on...

Poor Civil Rights history of the Republicans??? On the contrary, there'd be no civil liberties if it weren't for Republicans.

Oh for f**k's sake, read a god damn history book for a change. For the hundredth time, so I can get it ouf the freakin' way because you guys keep posting the same god damn thing:

The Republican and Democratic parties had two major political transitions between conservative and liberal ideologies. The Republicans of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th Century are what you would call Democrats today. The Democrats were what we'd call the Conservative Republicans of today. The early Republican party of Lincoln's era split over the Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln's goals over the Civil War. The side supporting the Emancipation became Abolition Republicans. They were liberal in every aspect of the word, supporting a move away from traditional values and establishing a new economy.

Again, the parties shifted and split. By the 1960s the majority of Conservative voters were Democratic. As the lines were drawn when it came to Civil Rights, the entire political spectrum shifted once again. Civil Rights activists promoted a new Democratic party around Civil Rights, a move back to the traditional Abolition Republican parties of Lincoln's era. Conservative states such as Alabama (yes, a Democratic state) switched to Republican at odds with the Civil Rights movement. California, for example, moved from a Republican state to a Democratic state.

Since the late 1960s, we now have our established set of Republicans and Democrats. I would suggest reading books instead of banning them, Republicans might learn a thing or two.

[subego]

As per usual, I want to pull out a few points as they relate most directly to the topic. I'll gladly address any of the other points if you desire, or will just do so naturally as this progresses.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not to sound snide, but how well does anyone truly understand someone else. We only understand them based on what they display.

This doesn't sound snide at all, in fact, it speaks directly to the core of my thesis.

Observation is only the first and most basic component of analyzing someone's motivation.

People tend to analyze others' motivations in terms of their own motivations. To put it another way, people think "the only reason I would do X is if I were an asshole, therefore someone who does X must be an asshole".

The next step is to ask yourself why would that person be an asshole in this circumstance? This rarely happens unless one is determined to expend effort understanding a person's motivations. If one has already judged another to be (or that they are acting like) an asshole, few are interested in that extra effort.

I hope you don't think I'm being snide, but the way you behave on this board is a perfect example. You don't seem to suffer assholes lightly, nor can I say you put forth great effort to make sure someone is being an asshole before presenting your determination of said. I'd even venture a guess this is the reason you constantly draw ire for being partisan. Many see that initial determination from you, they take it personally, and then file you away under "partisan".

Of course, if the other person is willing to expend the effort to clarify things, you're game. After having debated a you on more than one occasion I can say you are a very honest debater. While I have some issues with it (especially when aimed at myself), what I say above doesn't detract from your honesty at all, it just earns you the right to put "brutally" beforehand.

Either way, I want you to know that I appreciate our debates. You're a tough customer, and if I can convince you of something you didn't initially agree with it takes me a great distance in terms of thinking I am objectively correct.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The "hate and oppose all aspects of one man, Bush" started when he supposedly "stole" the election from Al Gore. There are those (based on their display) that would like to see Bush fail so badly (including Iraq) that they forget what implications these failures have on the rest of us.

I would add that 9/11 caused a reverse of that trend for awhile, but I otherwise see this observation as correct. In fact, I'm really glad you brought this up, because this is an excellent example of my thesis at work.

Any American, regardless of political affiliation, should have an enormous problem with the "hate and oppose all aspects of one man, Bush" attitude. I can't think of a better illustration of assholishness taken to (literally) frightening levels.

That being said, I understand the sentiment. I've been immersed in it for six years and counting. My SO's sister is a peace activist, professionally. You can just imagine how much of this attitude I get from her.

What I can tell you I understand about it is that it's based in fear.

Does this give them a pass? Absolutely not. Out of line is out of line, and this is about as out of line as you can get. The fact remains however, that if one is interested in addressing that fear (which I think if American, one has a vested interest in doing so), the magnitude to which the Democrats are out of line makes addressing their fear hard, hard, hard work.

I think in hindsight, it should be pretty easy to see that the way Republicans responded to the Democrats' acting out of line (an expression of their fear) was not the patient understanding that the situation required. It was more on par with a direct confrontation for their misbehavior.

Even the most basic understanding of human psychology should tell you that if the underlying motivation to misbehavior is fear, a direct confrontation of their misbehavior is equivalent to punishing them for being afraid. Even worse, since it's you they are scared of, the whole procedure is only going to reinforce their fear.

Like with a frightened little child, getting them over their fear takes much patience and effort.

If you believe they aren't worth the effort, well then that's your opinion. It's not like you're being unilateral, they feel the same way about you...

Am I the only one who notices that the prevalence of this attitude really is the terrorists winning?

[ApeInTheShell]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I wouldn't expect anything more from a Republican.

Oh for f**k's sake, read a god damn history book for a change. For the hundredth time, so I can get it ouf the freakin' way because you guys keep posting the same god damn thing:

That's funny. If I read an American History book this semester I can be guaranteed that history won't be the same next semester because revisionists are constantly changing the facts!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Oh for f**k's sake, read a god damn history book for a change. For the hundredth time, so I can get it ouf the freakin' way because you guys keep posting the same god damn thing:

There's no reason for this olePigeon. If you'd read my reply, you'd know I responded to the point; "... because of the Poor Civil Rights history of the Republicans..." This statement was factually incorrect and I addressed it with; "This has led to a Republican constituency that has again reached out to the minority more effectively, recently and will continue to do so.

I'm well aware of the shift in culture over time between the parties, but I'm also aware of vocal minorities in parties. I'm well aware of the political climate in the US and I'm well aware of voting patterns, lobbying, and pandering. I'm aware of poll-taking and propaganda. You have only to listen to the numerous speeches of smaller government and lower taxes by JFK to understand the shift. Most people are Conservative. Most politicians will say Conservative things. They did in the early 1900's, the mid 1950's, and continue to this day. Some things haven't changed. Nothing I said was inaccurate nor worthy of critique. Especially from you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I hope you don't think I'm being snide, but the way you behave on this board is a perfect example. You don't seem to suffer assholes lightly, nor can I say you put forth great effort to make sure someone is being an asshole before presenting your determination of said. I'd even venture a guess this is the reason you constantly draw ire for being partisan. Many see that initial determination from you, they take it personally, and then file you away under "partisan".

Some do file me away as being partisan, but I'd guess most who've read much of me know I'm not hesitant in critiquing this Administration nor am I reluctant to "speak ill of a fellow Republican." (Reagan reference... )

That said, I've always tried to adhere to a crude "rapport-building" exercise. I generally do this by matching the tone of the person to whom I am speaking. For example;

- If someone uses a specific word to describe something, even if I wouldn't normally use that word myself (not referring to the "rape" thing) I may use that word for the remainder of our discussion because I know it is one they've used and can understand.

- If I encounter someone who is overly aggressive, this brings out the absolute worst in me. I will respond with a degree of vitriol that at times even I regret. This is not too often, but it has become more often as the climate here has become more polarized and at times... downright silly. I believe there are frightened children and there are belligerant children and I generally address them in different ways.

- I'm not always a good judge of character, but you and I have been doing this a long time. I think we're usually pretty keen to what we'd call "buzzwords". You and I have a recent example of this. Our recent "scuffle" was over the use of the word "rape" for describing our actions in Iraq among other things. Rape is one of those words very few would use to describe our action and those few (again, nothing personal) are too often just trying to be assholes. To your point, this may cause a degree of fear because I may not appreciate someone framing the US as a rapist. I may fear that we've come to a place where patriotism is a bad word and civil discourse a phenomena of days long gone. I generally have no problem with disagreement, but I think delivery is critical. I may become defensive and assume a more aggressive posture. The good news is, you and I came to a sober conclusion on that piece and we often do. I also appreciate discussing issues with you. I appreciate most discussions in this forum and often come away with at least a better idea of another's mindset. I've not had my mind completely changed here and I may be too mule-headed to ever change entirely, but I have softened somewhat on particular items. That said, sometimes aggression just needs to get out. Sometimes we feel we have to use words like "rape" and sometimes I have to rail on people that use words like "rape". After all, there is something appealing about the political WAR lounge.

Of course, if the other person is willing to expend the effort to clarify things, you're game. After having debated a you on more than one occasion I can say you are a very honest debater. While I have some issues with it (especially when aimed at myself), what I say above doesn't detract from your honesty at all, it just earns you the right to put "brutally" beforehand.

I appreciate that subego. I'm feeling kind of mushy here. We should probably talk about baseball or something soon.

Either way, I want you to know that I appreciate our debates. You're a tough customer, and if I can convince you of something you didn't initially agree with it takes me a great distance in terms of thinking I am objectively correct.

While it may not be an 8 page thread, I suspect there's a great many things we'd agree on. In fact, we actually agree on most aspects of our Iraqi action and what to do at this point. I've often enjoyed reading your take also and will continue to.

Any American, regardless of political affiliation, should have an enormous problem with the "hate and oppose all aspects of one man, Bush" attitude. I can't think of a better illustration of assholishness taken to (literally) frightening levels.

That being said, I understand the sentiment. I've been immersed in it for six years and counting. My SO's sister is a peace activist, professionally. You can just imagine how much of this attitude I get from her.

What I can tell you I understand about it is that it's based in fear.

Does this give them a pass? Absolutely not. Out of line is out of line, and this is about as out of line as you can get. The fact remains however, that if one is interested in addressing that fear (which I think if American, one has a vested interest in doing so), the magnitude to which the Democrats are out of line makes addressing their fear hard, hard, hard work.

I agree, but what confounds me is the direction of that fear. There are many who'd fear the US over just about any other hostile entity in existence. Often times I believe this is rooted in a fashionable self-loathing of sorts and finds itself in "communities" of the like-minded. In some cases it becomes a contest of who can express the most vitriol for the quick high-five even if it has absolutely no roots in common sense. (examples in YouTube of reporters at peace rallies asking participants to locate Iraq on a world map. The results are often comical). It seems to go beyond the "cause" and too often becomes a social gathering leading ironically to violence, and pollution of all things. Hard to explain, but I agree; very, very hard to address.

I think in hindsight, it should be pretty easy to see that the way Republicans responded to the Democrats' acting out of line (an expression of their fear) was not the patient understanding that the situation required. It was more on par with a direct confrontation for their misbehavior.

I agree and I think part of the problem was that they believed the Democrats were incapable of making themselves electable. I don't think they saw losing the House and Senate. This changed the tide somewhat and I suspect it will continue to. I was thankful to see this for nothing more than to get some answers, but they are still not as forthcoming as I'd like. I had expressed my hope for lost seats specifically for this reason, but... here's to continued hoping.

Even the most basic understanding of human psychology should tell you that if the underlying motivation to misbehavior is fear, a direct confrontation of their misbehavior is equivalent to punishing them for being afraid. Even worse, since it's you they are scared of, the whole procedure is only going to reinforce their fear.

We do see this, but we also see more than just fearful children, but belligerant children. I've met some children that only understand pain or the threat of it. I hate to say it, but sometimes a whack on the rear end is in order. Thankfully, I have girls and they are almost perfect. Often wonder how this could be.

Am I the only one who notices that the prevalence of this attitude really is the terrorists winning?

You're not alone subego. I've wondered this. I think the stakes are too high to give up now and this you and I can agree on. There's nothing pleasant about human nature though and I find that I've lost faith in much of it.

[subego]

I'm not going to be able to make a longer response until Saturday, but I wanted to thank you for your very kind words.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Often times I believe this is rooted in a fashionable self-loathing of sorts and finds itself in "communities" of the like-minded. In some cases it becomes a contest of who can express the most vitriol for the quick high-five even if it has absolutely no roots in common sense.

You hit the nail on the head, but you smacketh it down way harder than you may have imagined.

Leftist philosophy is broken, and is guilty of promoting the attitude of which the Left is often accused: elitism, narcissism and self-loathing. These aren't fashionable, they're endemic.

With specific regards to their attitude towards the U.S., if the core tenet of your philosophy is that success should be penalized, guess which country "deserves" the largest penalty?

I mean, just for existing, let alone when it does something "bad".

This is why I didn't want to give Doofy too much flack, he's more or less correct. I wouldn't call Leftists mindless, but I can't say they're doing all their homework either. To be fair, this homework is far more difficult than it seems. Leftism can be irresistibly alluring.

What I think is equally important to know about the Leftists (at least in America) is that in general, despite how their philosophy runs counter to their intentions, we are ultimately talking about well intentioned people. This is why I make the plea for understanding over a spanking. These people are for the most part capable of being rational, it's a garbage in, garbage out problem.

Beating up the garbage out won't fix the garbage in. As they can't see where they're making the error, it only makes the person think you're out to get them. If you keep doing it after the initial shock, you know what? They're right. After a certain number of (in their perception) incomprehensibly reasoned boots to the head, they're forced to resist on principle.

These are decent Americans. They don't deserve to be crushed for a well intentioned difference in philosophy, nor should they be blamed for defending themselves, even if that defense is based in making their garbage out louder.

It's all they know. What else are they going to do?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

These are decent Americans. They don't deserve to be crushed for a well intentioned difference in philosophy, nor should they be blamed for defending themselves, even if that defense is based in making their garbage out louder.

It's all they know. What else are they going to do?

In principle, I agree. Differences in opinion are what make this country great and you're correct; it is likely more effective to apply honey than vinegar. You mentioned something about the lure of leftist philosophy and I'm inclined to agree with that as well. The problem I have is the delivery and from whom I must hear it. Too often it becomes racists telling you how racist you are. Xenophobes telling you how xenophobic you are. Those comparing homosexuals to animals telling you how homophobic you are. Wealthy, gated-community liberals telling the average blue-collar American how they lack compassion and understanding. Carbon-junkies indicting you for your footprint, etc... (recent example of John Travolta in the news speaking of the global warming problem, with pictures of his 5 jets in the back ground one of which a friggin' Boeing 747, 400-passenger jet)

Perceptions run the gamete and when the vocal minority become representative of a collective, the message gets blurred and perceptions become "we/they" vitriol and the vinegar is deployed. When differences are elevated beyond similarities, we become divided. I'm glad you and I have found some common ground and civility. I'm hoping it becomes a little more contagious.