The last line of pardonyou?'s post makes me indescribably sad. July 20, 2004 7:32 AM   Subscribe

The last line of pardonyou?'s post makes me indescribably sad.
posted by jammer to Etiquette/Policy at 7:32 AM (144 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

This isn't a callout of pardonyou?. If anything, it's a callout of amberglow, but this really isn't meant as a callout at all.

That comment, and the environment that bred it, is the essence of why MetaFilter has been fun for me less and less often for the past three years or so.

What is it going to take for people to realize that, god damnit, we don't do politics well, and to just knock it the fuck off?

I'm frustrated, is all.
posted by jammer at 7:34 AM on July 20, 2004


People do realize it. Like me, they're the ones who don't participate in political threads.
posted by crunchland at 7:36 AM on July 20, 2004


Yeah, yeah... don't like it, don't look. I know. The fundamental rule of internet communication.

I guess I'm just tired. I'm tired of the divisiveness in this country. I'm tired of seeing arguments everywhere, not just here, degrade into "fuck you!"/"no, fuck you!" wars. I'm tired of seeing fatass American flamewars get 100+ comments, while cool things like this get practically forgotten. I'm tired of the bad blood spilling out of the god damn Newsfilter cesspool and infecting other threads

You're another low-four-digit member, crunchland. You remember what this site used to be like. Can you honestly say that seeing the front page dragged down in filth on a daily basis doesn't make you sad? That you can "just ignore it", pick out the gems that do, still, pop up every now and then, and be happy with that?

I guess I'm just sick of it all. Maybe this post doesn't even belong on MeFi. I know it certainly didn't belong in the suspect thread.

Blah.
posted by jammer at 7:50 AM on July 20, 2004


of course it "makes" you sad. you're a whimpering simp. thousands are dead, our nations standing in world affairs is irretrievably shit-encrusted, the rectums of wee children violently wrenched open in the name of freedom, and you're pissing and moaning about language used on a web site. go see a movie or something. jesus christ!
posted by quonsar at 7:55 AM on July 20, 2004


Not to defend amberglow too much, but my response was to quonsar. And for what it's worth, quonsar has subsequently dumped the mother of all turds in the thread. I'm not necessarily proud of my role in the thread, or the fact that I find myself unable to avoid taking the bait "people" like quonsar dangle.

on preview: I think quonsar forgot his meds today.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:56 AM on July 20, 2004


I think its interesting that, in the interest of making metafilter more diverse, the last batch of newbies allowed to sign up seems to have been directly imported from Free Republic. If I were paranoid, I'd say that there was a concerted effort to get the most obnoxious right-wing gasbags to come shout down any opposing viewpoint posted here. We didn't just get diversity. We got divisiveness as part of the bargain.

But no. Apparently I don't remember how Metafilter used to be. I thought it was pretty much this way all along. The fact that we're in the middle of a presidential campaign probably doesn't help matters much. The fact that the US is probably at its most partisan since the days of the Civil War probably doesn't help either. Metafilter is just a mirror of whats happening everywhere else.
posted by crunchland at 7:58 AM on July 20, 2004


To save you the trouble of visiting the thread, here's what quonsar wrote:
not good enough. you willfully, ignorantly, unquestioningly gobbled up the vomitus of deception, boisterously and gleefully supported the deaths of tens of thousands, and now grasp righteously at straws you pray will keep your pathetic, propoganda-soaked cranium above the effluent. fucker.
As much as I love being accused of "boisterously and gleefully support[ing] the deaths of tens of thousands," and hearing about my "pathetic, propoganda[sic]-soaked cranium" (who wouldn't?), I think that statement's just a wee bit out of line. Maybe it's just me.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:02 AM on July 20, 2004


pardonyou?: I know you were responding to quonsar. I had about the same visceral reaction you did to his original post, and had it been directed at me, might have reacted the same way, which is why I made clear I had no real problem with what you said.

crunchland: I thought it was pretty much this way all along.

I don't think it used to be, not nearly quite so much. But yes, it's definitely a mirror of the current cultural environment. That doesn't mean we can't strive to make it better. If I wanted a simulacrum of common society, I'd spend time on Usenet or something.
posted by jammer at 8:04 AM on July 20, 2004


well, Matt's the ultimate arbitrator here, and he doesn't seem to mind enough to take action (e.g. killing newsfilter posts).

Sure it sucks (and I'm no angel myself) but unless he steps up to the plate, either by using a heavier hand with culling posts, or implementing some sort of mod system, we're sort of screwed.

The current group pressures here (the jihadists left and right fighting to the death on each politics-filter thread, counter posting each other, etc) are something that we as users can't stop, because the preachers are going to preach whether anyone is listening or not.

So Matt... a pony with a big ax perhaps?
posted by leotrotsky at 8:10 AM on July 20, 2004


I think quonsar forgot his meds today.

maybe but he did make one good point tho -- Saddam murdered (while his then-allied in the West willingly looked away) thousands of people, Iraq was attacked on bullshit evidence, the US is probably going to be attacked soon and 9-11 could be easily become the second-worst attack on US soil, children got raped in Abu Ghraib as Americans watched and took pictures and the reason for jammer's sadness is A MEFI POST?

there are much more serious reason for feeling sad about stuff, I'd say

and anyway I understand pardonyou's anger. a few decent former supporters of this obscene war do feel bad now about their support, about their having been enabler's of Bush's war.
posted by matteo at 8:12 AM on July 20, 2004


or, alternatively, we could kill them all, and let God sort them out.
posted by leotrotsky at 8:12 AM on July 20, 2004


pardonyou? pulls the mask of reason over his warmongering countenance with such practiced aplomb!
posted by quonsar at 8:13 AM on July 20, 2004


don't we all?
posted by johnnyboy at 8:23 AM on July 20, 2004


the rectums of wee children violently wrenched open

Where do you get the imagery??

thousands are dead, our nations standing in world affairs is irretrievably shit-encrusted, ................., and you're pissing and moaning about language used on a web site.

Can your moaning about someone else's moaning really be said to be any different or better?

I'm not moaning by the way.
posted by kenaman at 8:24 AM on July 20, 2004


Yes, the reason for my sadness is a fucking mefi post. It is possible to be upset over things other than the fact that the entire god damn world is going to hell in a hand basket, isn't it?

I'm sorry I don't share your all-suprassing sense of righteous outrage with things that allows you to hone your hatred to a single, focused point which you can wield with the accuracy of a neurosurgeon. I'm sure we're all very impressed with your zen-like mastery of your emotions. You are such a fucking higher being, and we all wish we could be you.

I know it's a blight upon your existence, but yes, some of us are not as enlightened and zealous as you, and are still living down here in the world of shit and filth and bills and annoying jobs and stupid celebrities and gas pains and friends doing stupid shit and dying pets and all the other things that can upset a person. And to those of us who haven't reached the Ninth Plane of Righteous Self-Denial and Caring, god dammit, those matter.

So yes, I'm sad over a fucking mefi post. And if you've got a problem with that, you can fucking choke on a bucket of cocks.

God DAMN it.
posted by jammer at 8:25 AM on July 20, 2004


the rectums of wee children violently wrenched open

Where do you get the imagery??


I PAY ATTENTION.
posted by quonsar at 8:27 AM on July 20, 2004


you can fucking choke on a bucket of cocks.

the last line of jammers post makes me incredibly sad.
posted by quonsar at 8:29 AM on July 20, 2004


I thought I was the reason Metafilter doesn't do politics well? Looks like quonsar ruined that thread all on his own. And pardonyou?, good for you for admitting where you once stood and that you've now changed how you feel about it. I'm pretty much right there with you. I too supported the effort, but now would have rather done nothing at all had I known it would go the way it has been.

there are much more serious reason for feeling sad about stuff, I'd say

Is that what you would say to your kid when his/her pet hamster dies? Why should everyone have to put the rest of their lives on hold because YOU think there is more serious stuff going on in the world. I have a pretty big world right here in my lap that needs worrying about once in a while.

And I don't "feel bad" for ever supporting the war. I'm disappointed perhaps, but I don't feel bad. You're such a smug little prick... most of the time.
posted by Witty at 8:37 AM on July 20, 2004


and we all wish we could be you


funnily enough, I often wish I was quonsar, but I'm digressing


you can fucking choke on a bucket of cocks


*starts coughing uncontrollably*
posted by matteo at 8:38 AM on July 20, 2004


If any of this has proven anything, it's that quonsar is a malignant tumor, furiously churning out bile and dragging others into his particular breed of antagonism. It's a great m.o. -- accuse people in such a way that they feel compelled to respond in kind. Forget whether his allegations are valid -- it's the verbiage that matters! He successfully dragged jammer from a point where he was disappointed about the level of discourse, to a point where jammer himself told quonsar to "fucking choke on a bucket of cocks" -- all in less than one hour! That's some accomplishment! Bully for quonsar!
posted by pardonyou? at 8:40 AM on July 20, 2004


He successfully dragged jammer from a point where he was disappointed about the level of discourse, to a point where jammer himself told quonsar to "fucking choke on a bucket of cocks" -- all in less than one hour! That's some accomplishment! Bully for quonsar!

That's what happens. One little bit of shit on your heel stinks up your shoe for a week.

And when you're living in a world of shit, sometimes the only thing to do is shoot the dog.
posted by jammer at 8:44 AM on July 20, 2004




Is that what you would say to your kid when his/her pet hamster dies?


no, I'll tell him/her that jammer choked the poor hamster (before shooting the dog -- btw jammer, do you have a fetish for cruelty towards animals? it's a very bad sign, if you do). I just won't say how the poor rodent choked until my kid reaches 18 years of age


I'm disappointed perhaps, but I don't feel bad.

you're free not to care, of course.
it does help that nobody bombed the fuck out _your_ apartment block for a month, and nobody beat the shit out of you (or raped your kid) to soften you up for those nice CIA interrogators. that's why you don't feel bad, perhaps.
posted by matteo at 8:46 AM on July 20, 2004


It continues to blow me away that quonsar is allowed to get away with what he does here, but what's frankly unbelievable is that some people cheer him on.

our nations standing in world affairs is irretrievably shit-encrusted, the rectums of wee children violently wrenched open in the name of freedom

I never thought I'd miss Norman Mailer.
posted by Skot at 8:51 AM on July 20, 2004


matteo - Keep twisting dick. I don't feel bad for supporting a war against Saddam and his regime. I'm disappointed that it didn't go as well as I had hoped it would.
posted by Witty at 8:51 AM on July 20, 2004


btw jammer, do you have a fetish for cruelty towards animals? it's a very bad sign, if you do

No, I don't... I only have a fetish for cruelty towards smug, self-righteous pricks like yourself. Or, to use pardonyou?'s choice turn-of-phrase: from one fucker to another, fuck you.

And, while I'm at it, fuck quonsar, and fuck amberglow, and fuck troutfishing, and fuck fivefreshfish, and fuck y2karl. And just for equal opportunity's sake, fuck 111 and fuck the other right-wing trolls whose names I can't remember because all the left-wing trolls drive them off as soon as they show their faces. Fuck the whole motherfucking lot of you.

It would be so easy to go flame-out at this point, but I like this place too much. It's a shame about the homeless jerkoffs in the corner, though.
posted by jammer at 8:54 AM on July 20, 2004


Is that what you would say to your kid when his/her pet hamster dies?

No, I'd tell him I had to shoot him for shitting too much.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:56 AM on July 20, 2004


I have a pretty big world right here in my lap that needs worrying about once in a while.

quit bragging. and just neuter yourself if you can't handle it.
posted by mr.marx at 9:03 AM on July 20, 2004


fuck quonsar, and fuck amberglow, and fuck troutfishing, and fuck fivefreshfish, and fuck y2karl

mr Vice President, you should have ID'd yourself sooner. nice to meet you, Sir. how's mrs. Lynne?


but I like this place too much

yeah, everybody's so polite around here
posted by matteo at 9:07 AM on July 20, 2004


Is PoliticsFilter a preview of what the action at the convention is gonna be like?

Cos if so I gotta get out my lawn chair, a case of beer and a bucket of wings so's I can enjoy it all in style.
posted by jonmc at 9:12 AM on July 20, 2004


Well I for one am glad that we have had the breath of fresh air that is this thread blow into MeTa and I can only hope it becomes the gale that clears out all the potty mouths from the whole of MeFi.
posted by biffa at 9:12 AM on July 20, 2004


remember kids: anger leads to hate, and hate leads to the dark side.
posted by jazzkat11 at 9:15 AM on July 20, 2004


"I'm tired of seeing fatass American flamewars get 100+ comments, while cool things like this get practically forgotten."

I don't think very many here fail to notice the signal just because of all the noise. I suspect the vast majority enjoy the good posts, even though they find guilty pleasure in the noise.

Surely you don't think most people ignore the good stuff.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:17 AM on July 20, 2004


And, while I'm at it, fuck quonsar, and fuck amberglow, and fuck troutfishing, and fuck fivefreshfish, and fuck y2karl.

Why am I being fucked?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:17 AM on July 20, 2004


If this isn't a call-out, I can't figure out for the life of me what the point of this thread was. Yes, the thread was ugly, and yes this seems to be happening more often lately, but the U.S. is in the middle of an election and, as was mentioned, they have a president that has divided the country like no other in modern history. The sheer folly of administration combined with the inability for the military to control its troops has left the world with a seemingly endless barrage of terribly disconcerting news, from the rape of children to the deaths thousands upon thousands of people innocent civilians to the curtailing of civil liberties back stateside.

Now, it would be nice if people here could keep a modicum of decency about them instead of flying off the handle every time something inciteful is said, but that isn't always the case and perhaps when these things errupt there should be some sort of time out, especially if it's the same offenders as last time.

However, as you've so ably pointed out in this quote:


No, I don't... I only have a fetish for cruelty towards smug, self-righteous pricks like yourself. Or, to use pardonyou?'s choice turn-of-phrase: from one fucker to another, fuck you.

And, while I'm at it, fuck quonsar, and fuck amberglow, and fuck troutfishing, and fuck fivefreshfish, and fuck y2karl. And just for equal opportunity's sake, fuck 111 and fuck the other right-wing trolls whose names I can't remember because all the left-wing trolls drive them off as soon as they show their faces. Fuck the whole motherfucking lot of you.


Even those most stringently opposed to such behaviour often fly off the handle just as quickly. And not only that, youve misdirected your anger at a number of people who contribute a lot of good information and links about the war in iraq and usually debate in a straight-forward way, sans anger (I'm thinking of amberglow, troutfishing, and y2karl in particular). The fact that you view them all as trolls is probably indicative of your complete removal (seemingly) from any and all information about what's going on in Iraq; I can't think of any other explanation for it (providing information isn't trolling, especially if you stick around and debate with actual points after).

I'm sorry you seem to be upset about other things in your life (bills, friends, etc.), but I've always been of the mind that you're better off taking a break from metafilter when these things creep up, or at least sticking to the nice, heart-warming threads that will no doubt re-appear this friday like a plague ;) Go outside, take a walk, feed the birds!
posted by The God Complex at 9:18 AM on July 20, 2004


Metafilter: you can fucking choke on a bucket of cocks.
posted by bondcliff at 9:20 AM on July 20, 2004


If you don't like the way a thread is going, try making a positive contribution to the thread by posting a thoughtful and interesting comment. It can be a good idea to ignore those who are behaving badly and strike off in a completely new conversational direction - otherwise you can become embroiled in the bad discussion too. I've seen threads turned completely around because one person made a great comment and others pitched in and worked with the good material provided.
posted by orange swan at 9:20 AM on July 20, 2004


*starts coughing uncontrollably*

ah, memories.
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:20 AM on July 20, 2004


Miguel's caipirinha recipe!
posted by mr.marx at 9:26 AM on July 20, 2004


I like pancakes.
posted by widdershins at 9:28 AM on July 20, 2004


Wait, wait, let me get this now: Each and every time one MeFi member says "fuck you" to another, needs to embarrass himself with a profanity-spewing freakout, we get a new MeTa thread?

Seriously. quonsar is as usual being a dick, but nobody forced jammer to break out the bucket o' cocks. The person immediately responsible for that is jammer, while the ultimate responsibility lies with the person who started the thread. Hm.
posted by soyjoy at 9:30 AM on July 20, 2004


The fact that you view them all as trolls is probably indicative of your complete removal (seemingly) from any and all information about what's going on in Iraq; I can't think of any other explanation for it

Or perhaps because they're continually smearing their one-sided newfilter crap all over our pretty blue walls, but instantly go berserk as soon as anyone tries the opposite? I read news about happenings in Iraq daily, thank you, I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as the chicken littles here make it out to be, and while i"m pretty pissed off with Bush over how he's run the war, I still support the war itself. If you want to think that's because I'm completely ignorant, perhaps that says something about you, rather than me.

However, you do have a point. I did fly of the handle, and I did perhaps unfairly tar a few people. That's part of what I was griping about to begin with -- the lowest common denominator tends to drag people down to it, and it seems the LCD is getting lower everywhere these days. I just wish it weren't quite so low here. But then, lord knows I'm no angel, myself, as my posting history (and my behavior in this thread) well attest to.

But, see, I can talk reasonably with people with whom I disagree, when they're reasonable to begin with.

Quonsar and matteo can still go Cheney themselves, though.

Maybe I need a break from MeFi as a whole. I've done it before, I can do it again. I can quit any time.
posted by jammer at 9:34 AM on July 20, 2004


Once the protesting in the streets starts back up this is going to get a lot worse you know. Bush is too easy a target for liberal hate. And national security/gay marriage/tax cuts/Saddam was a bad man gives the conservatives too many passionate things to rally around.

We haven't even gotten to the convensions yet. If it's bad now it's going to be a riot in a couple months.

I think making a special case for banning political fire fights might be in order. How about this - Political threads are okay as long as they stay civil. If someone lays a turd in the thread they get a one week ban. Just till after the election. It would nice to be able to talk about this stuff. Right? But so far we're too busy knifing each other.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:45 AM on July 20, 2004


I'm disappointed that it didn't go as well as I had hoped it would.

Then I assume that you will take the logical course and fire the incompetents who made such a mess of it, rather than rewarding them with a second term?

Each and every time one MeFi member...needs to embarrass himself with a profanity-spewing freakout, we get a new MeTa thread?

Yes, and a time-out given. And I will continue to post them and point out the vile transgressions against the community standards until I am banned or until mathowie comes out of hiding with his chickenshit deletions and states his policy of what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to ugly, vicious personal attacks on other members in this forum. The Usenet-level personal attacks do far more harm to the tone and quality of this site than a million "newsfiltery" posts, and to tolerate them is to encourage them.
posted by rushmc at 9:48 AM on July 20, 2004


Or, expressed another way, those who seek to poison or end open debate should not be permitted to ruin it for all those honestly seeking to engage in same.
posted by rushmc at 9:52 AM on July 20, 2004


Metatalk: break out the bucket o' cocks.

*glares at Ufez & matteo* Foggy camera my lily whitesunburned ass.
posted by romakimmy at 9:55 AM on July 20, 2004


As the second-newest MeFi member, I'm curious how long I have to wait before I can tell people to fucking choke on a bucket of cocks. Does it come before, or after, FPP privileges?
posted by louigi at 9:57 AM on July 20, 2004


OK, now that made me laugh, louigi. Thanks.

Perferably, you should never tell another member to fucking choke on a bucket of cocks. Do as I say, don't do as I do. ;)
posted by jammer at 9:59 AM on July 20, 2004


You 17.5k motherfucker's make me sick to my stomach. Make yourself at home.
posted by biffa at 10:00 AM on July 20, 2004


how many cocks are there in a bucket anyway? I mean, how much wood would a

nevermind
posted by mr.marx at 10:05 AM on July 20, 2004


It depends if it's a bucket of regular or extra crispy.
posted by bondcliff at 10:11 AM on July 20, 2004


~
posted by y2karl at 10:18 AM on July 20, 2004


I'd like to thank jammer for linking back to my "overlooked but cool" post from last night, though. So all of you people put down the cocks and go read it!
posted by scody at 10:21 AM on July 20, 2004


Bucket 'o' cocks. Man, that is frighteningly euphonious.

Bucket 'o' cocks! Bucket 'o' cocks!
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 10:22 AM on July 20, 2004


Foggy camera my _ sunburned ass.

it was foggy, kimmy. ask poor 111. or try pouring a bucket of cocks over your camera, then you'll see (foggily) for yourself

*winks at Ufez, hands kim a bucket of after-sun lotion*
posted by matteo at 10:29 AM on July 20, 2004

the entire god damn world is going to hell in a hand basket
The age of this particular saying should tell you something.
I love freedom of speech; it gets so colorful! ;-P
posted by mischief at 10:36 AM on July 20, 2004


the lowest common denominator tends to drag people down to it

the devil made me do it
posted by eddydamascene at 10:38 AM on July 20, 2004


MetaFilter: put down the cocks and go read it.

Oy.

OK, after having calmed down a little bit, I want to apologize publicly for the way I went off and for being a little too aggresive towards amberglow (who did post something I hadn't seen on my usual news sources, which is why I do sometimes dip into newsfilter posts, as much as I hate them) and y2karl (who is much too strident and one-sided for my tastes, but does drag up lots of good links very often). That was a little unfair.

I still stand by everything else I said. Especially the bucket 'o' cocks.
posted by jammer at 10:40 AM on July 20, 2004


keep standing by the bucket of cocks. you seem to be enjoying that quite a lot

and thanks for the lesson in good manners and proper MeFi etiquette
posted by matteo at 10:51 AM on July 20, 2004


Might I have a piccie of you standing beside the bucket o' cocks?

k thx, bi!

xoxo
posted by iconomy at 10:52 AM on July 20, 2004


Might I have a piccie of you standing beside the bucket o' cocks?

Sure!
posted by jammer at 11:00 AM on July 20, 2004


Aw, you're cute! I knew you would be ;)

A bit on the scrawny side, but still!
posted by iconomy at 11:17 AM on July 20, 2004


*tries to extinguish fire by pouring on bucket after bucket of cocks*

*is burned*
posted by dhoyt at 11:26 AM on July 20, 2004


Then I assume that you will take the logical course and fire the incompetents who made such a mess of it, rather than rewarding them with a second term?

You shouldn't assume anything.... but thanks for the thought. I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for yet. My vote will have little to do with the "lie" about WMDs, I can tell you that much. I will think about the past AND the future with my vote. I will consider both international and domestic issues when I cast my vote. My vote will be given to the person I think will make the best President of the United States... simple as that. I assume you'll do the same.
posted by Witty at 11:27 AM on July 20, 2004


everyone, please relax.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:42 AM on July 20, 2004


I think sometimes MeFi needs a huge collective bong hit.
posted by jammer at 11:52 AM on July 20, 2004


MetaFilter: A Bucket O' Cocks
*waits for KFC to steal the concept*

My google-fu has found a "Bucket for cocks", complete with a steel ball lock.

I think quonsar forgot his meds today.
From my personal exposure to him, it sounds like he's finally gotten back ON them...

My vote will be given to the person I think will make the best President of the United States... simple as that.
I'm in the not-much-of-a-choice group, having concluded very early in 2000 that George W. Bush was thoroughly unqualified and undeserving of the office of President, yet, at this point I have realized that he actually has, so far, done less damage to our country than I expected. But, if given another 4 years, I'm sure he'll catch up.
posted by wendell at 12:13 PM on July 20, 2004


Bush would be great if he'd just stop spending tax dollars like a drunken Democrat sailor.

Or more like this guy:


posted by hama7 at 12:17 PM on July 20, 2004


Jesus you guys. That flamewar was pretty comical. I'm sad to hear that some people are putting shotguns in their mouths over it.

I think something interesting is going on in all these weak-ass callouts. It's as if MeFi is asymptotically approaching perfection, and the only things left to call out are getting smaller and less significant. Soon, all we'll have left to call out will be spelling mistakes and raunchy usernames.

Self-Policing Since 1999. Perfect Since 2004.
posted by scarabic at 1:03 PM on July 20, 2004


yet, at this point I have realized that he actually has, so far, done less damage to our country than I expected.

Yowza, Wendell! How much more damage did you think he was capable of? Wait, don't answer that -- *knocks on wood, crosses self, throws salt over left shoulder* -- okay, go ahead.
posted by scody at 1:03 PM on July 20, 2004


Hama7, do you recall that Goldwater was opposed to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and thought that the military should just mind its own damn business and not be concerned with the whole issue? Just wondering.

I mean, okay, maybe you do. Maybe you're more of a libertarian than a social-conservative bent. You seem very socially conservative to me, though.

Hell, I'd vote for Goldwater over dubya.

About, um, twenty years ago I guess, my grandmother and her boyfriend flew Goldwater on her boyfriend's Lear to some meeting somewhere. They were both giddy at meeting Goldwater and spending time with him. They asked him to run for President again. He said, no, he'd had enough of that, thank you. (My grandmother didn't like Reagan much, despised Bush 41, and was pretty happy with Clinton. She, contrarily, moved leftward as she got older.)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:05 PM on July 20, 2004


Now, I'm liberal, but to a degree
I want ev'rybody to be free
But if you think that I'll let Barry Goldwater
Move in next door and marry my daughter
You must think I'm crazy!
I wouldn't let him do it for all the farms in Cuba.
posted by timeistight at 1:08 PM on July 20, 2004


Personally, I prefer a nice handbasket of cocks.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:15 PM on July 20, 2004


And, while I'm at it, fuck quonsar, and fuck amberglow, and fuck troutfishing, and fuck fivefreshfish, and fuck y2karl.

I get it.

You're their fuckbuddy.
posted by sgt.serenity at 1:41 PM on July 20, 2004


nah, he just wants to be.

And if a comment not even directed at you makes you indescribably sad, jammer, something's wrong. Take a break or something.
posted by amberglow at 1:46 PM on July 20, 2004


I hereby declare this the "Bucket o' Cocks" thread. Bill sperm for everyone!
posted by languagehat at 1:57 PM on July 20, 2004


fuck fivefreshfish

leave that to this guy, man.
posted by jonmc at 1:57 PM on July 20, 2004


he's too emo for his own good
posted by keswick at 1:58 PM on July 20, 2004


amberglow - Aren't you the person saddened by all the "gay-bashing" on MetaFilter, yet can't produce a single example of being directly bashed?
posted by Witty at 2:06 PM on July 20, 2004


Everybody loves Amberglow.
posted by caddis at 2:13 PM on July 20, 2004


Reading this thread is like choking on a bucket o' cocks.
posted by chrid at 2:18 PM on July 20, 2004


And if a comment not even directed at you makes you indescribably sad, jammer, something's wrong. Take a break or something.

It's not the comment. It's the environment. MeFi used to be fun. It isn't, anymore. And it's become not-fun in the same way that alot of the rest of my life has. I'd like one place I can go where I don't have to wonder why otherwise pleasant, rational people become red-face, spittle-slinging lunatics as soon as politics come up. MeFi used to be that place, and it isn't any more.

Of course, it hasn't been for a long time; longer than most of the folks in this thread have been around, I dare say. So, yeah, keswick, I'm being too damn emo for my own good today. Like I said, things have really been getting me down.

Barkeep, another round of cocks for everyone, please.
posted by jammer at 2:31 PM on July 20, 2004


Maybe it's me but I reckon that 'you can choke on a bucket of fucking cocks' sounds better.
posted by i_cola at 2:37 PM on July 20, 2004


Hama7, do you recall that Goldwater was opposed to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and thought that the military should just mind its own damn business and not be concerned with the whole issue?

Had no idea, but why should they?

Maybe you're more of a libertarian than a social-conservative bent.

Libertarian on changing the federal tax system as it currently exists. I especially admired Goldater's determined Constitutional stance during the 60's on civil rights versus states' rights, and his plan, down to the letter, on how to win the Cold War proved accurate when Reagan won the war by implementing it.

You seem very socially conservative to me, though.

Probably mostly correct with several exceptions. (O.K., very few exceptions.)

They were both giddy at meeting Goldwater and spending time with him.

I would be too. He's one of the most underrated politicians, but after all, only two former senators in history have been elected president: Harding (maybe?) and Kennedy.

There are some other analogies between then and now, too. One of his campaign slogans at the time was; "In your heart you know he's right." The Democrats countered with "In your guts you know he's nuts." Sound familiar? The electorate responded by placing a blatant, disastrously destructive socialist in office. I hope we know better now, but I also hope Bush can curtail the spending of other people's money.

Senator Goldwater'S Arizona Chili .

By the way, pardonyou?'s comment did not make me indescribably sad, quite the opposite.
posted by hama7 at 2:38 PM on July 20, 2004


Oh MeFi is still fun. Why just today someone broke out a bucket of cocks. It was so funny it made my day.
posted by caddis at 2:43 PM on July 20, 2004


My vote will have little to do with the "lie" about WMDs

Did I say anything about any lies? I believe what I said was that when an employee demonstrates massive inompetence, one replaces him.

In any case, I commend your commitment to trying to vote for the person you believe will do the best job. I would encourage you (and everyone) to be very thorough in your analysis.

Re: hama7's Goldwater lovefest—Bush is not even a dingleberry on Goldwater's ass, so why confuse the issue of apples by throwing in an orange?
posted by rushmc at 2:46 PM on July 20, 2004


And it's become not-fun in the same way that alot of the rest of my life has.

HUGE CLUE.
posted by quonsar at 2:51 PM on July 20, 2004


quonsar, tell me something, I'm wondering...

How can one's life be so miserable, and spirit so broken, that you can only get your jollies by pissing on other people's parades? That's got to be a really depressing way to live. Kinda pathetic, really. I'm glad it's not me.

Oh, and I've got a giant bucket of extra-large cocks I've been saving just for you. Step right up and say "ah", please.

Or bend over, if you like it better that way.
posted by jammer at 2:56 PM on July 20, 2004


indescribably sad : Oxymoron! Adverbs are descriptive.

Oh, and ++quonsar!
posted by mischief at 2:56 PM on July 20, 2004

How can one's life be so miserable, and spirit so broken, that you can only get your jollies by pissing on other people's parades?
From your comments above, jammer, I wouldn't be so quick to say that it's quonsar's life that is miserable. Buy a mirror, baby! ;-P
posted by mischief at 2:58 PM on July 20, 2004


Oh, my life's far from miserable. Perfect? Nah. Am I prone to fits of depression or extreme moodiness? Quite frequently. Do I tend to be melodramatic? Hell yeah.

Would I trade it to be quonsar -- or, even better, a quonsar-wannabe fanboy? Hell no.

And now I'm getting the hell out of the office and heading off to play several hours' worth of wargames, because that's more fun than a bucket of cocks.

Love you, baby!
posted by jammer at 3:04 PM on July 20, 2004


Did I say anything about any lies?

I'm sorry if I suggested that you did. I just meant that that particular issue doesn't carry much weight with me and, in general, I won't base my voting one hot-marketed issue like that one. In short, I won't vote against Bush becasue I think he lied about WMDs. That may be PART of my thought process, but only a small part.

An acquaintance of mine is so stuck on the 2000 election, believing Bush didn't actually win (which is fine if you believe that), that she intends on basing her entire vote on that fact, by voting against Bush. That's just stupid to me. The 2000 election may have been a debacle, but we're HERE now. So please, if you're going to vote against Bush, please do so for reasons that really matter NOW. Please vote for Kerry because you think he will make a better president than Bush... not because "Gore should have won".

God, please let voter-turnout amaze us all with record numbers.
posted by Witty at 3:04 PM on July 20, 2004


amberglow - Aren't you the person saddened by all the "gay-bashing" on MetaFilter, yet can't produce a single example of being directly bashed?
No, i'm angered and offended by the gay-bashing here. I'm saddened by things like matt's "Bravo, 111" in response to 111's offensiveness and insults.

MeFi used to be fun. It isn't, anymore.
jammer, sometimes it is, and sometimes it's not (see the 111 shit, above). If you know that certain threads won't be pretty, don't go in them. Stick to other ones. I posted that because it was important, and wasn't on NYT/CNN/yahoo/etc.

Witty, there are many reasons to vote against Bush, and to vote for Kerry--2000's one of them, and will ensure heavier Democratic turnout this time.
posted by amberglow at 3:18 PM on July 20, 2004


"I'd like one place I can go where I don't have to wonder why otherwise pleasant, rational people become red-face, spittle-slinging lunatics"

AskMe is very good.

And BTW, so is MeFi if you refuse to read or enter the political/news threads. I actually did this for a month a while back. It works. And it also makes reading the site much quicker. Pretty cool. Sort of.

I fear this will sound silly, but dude, you are walking around with a bucket of cocks. And frequenting threads where such things are common. Then you complain about being surrounded by buckets of cocks?

Put the bucket of cocks down and step away. There's plenty of non-cock activity taking place at this domain.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:19 PM on July 20, 2004


through the fog of misery that is my life, stepping over the broken shards of my shattered spirit, comes a savior called "jammer" carrying a bucketful of cocks, and suggesting i should bend over. truly, he works in mysterious ways.
posted by quonsar at 3:40 PM on July 20, 2004


Couplet o' Bach's.
posted by lazaruslong at 3:41 PM on July 20, 2004


Jammer, I just want to throw my moral support, such as it is, behind you. And, um, your bucket o' cocks. People being jerks to each other is very depressing. I feel this way about the entire Internet. MeFi is really much better then most of the rest of it. Which is pretty sad all by itself.

You'll notice that over on #mefi, Quonsar (with occasional exceptions) is a pretty nice guy. Quite a bit nicer than some others over there, actually. There's something about posting this static text to these pages that is just distancing enough to allow people to be far more rude and hurtful than they otherwise would be.

The million dollar quesion is: which behavior reveals the true natures of people? Honestly, I think that may vary from person to person. The rude behavior on the net may be in some cases the true person revealed, in other cases, it's an aberration.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:42 PM on July 20, 2004


readers digest version of ethereal bligh's comment(s):

x may be x.
or it may be y.
posted by quonsar at 3:50 PM on July 20, 2004


Goldwater did against the Civil Rights Act, which did lock up the segregationist vote for the next four decades for the Republican party, which will always be a stain on his record. Pure pandering that was--nothing less.

He most likely, given his comments of record, would have been very much against the Gay Marriage amendment, if he were still alive, on the other hand....
posted by y2karl at 3:54 PM on July 20, 2004


did vote
posted by y2karl at 3:55 PM on July 20, 2004


I fear this will sound silly, but dude, you are walking around with a bucket of cocks.

*cries... from laughing*
posted by scody at 4:00 PM on July 20, 2004


Me too. I haven't laughed this *hard* in a long time.

This thread could have been the perfect storm after q's comment, but then the Bucket 'o cocks comment comes up, and then holy shit... hoohoohaahaahaaha bucket of cocks haahaamoohaahaahaa
posted by Quartermass at 4:29 PM on July 20, 2004


bucket o' cocks, shmucket o' shmocks.

i think you should all eat a bag o' dicks.
posted by sharpener at 4:33 PM on July 20, 2004


I just meant that that particular issue doesn't carry much weight with me and, in general, I won't base my voting one hot-marketed issue like that one. In short, I won't vote against Bush becasue I think he lied about WMDs.

So lying to the American public about matters of national security in order to start a virtually unilateral pre-emptive war is NOT something that should disqualify someone from serving as president? I'm afraid I can't quite follow that thought process...

An acquaintance of mine is so stuck on the 2000 election, believing Bush didn't actually win (which is fine if you believe that), that she intends on basing her entire vote on that fact, by voting against Bush. That's just stupid to me. The 2000 election may have been a debacle, but we're HERE now. So please, if you're going to vote against Bush, please do so for reasons that really matter NOW.

Isn't the most important factor in selecting whom you are going to vote for supposed to be their CHARACTER? Even the Republicans spout this line ad naseum. So it seems to me that all these things you want to dismiss reflect directly upon Bush's character, which we must attempt to assess if we are to predict how he will act/react in the future if left in office, therefore they are not only fair game but essential and critical bits of evidence, and to ignore them would be intellectually dishonest. I agree that we need to put the best man (of the mere two offered us to choose from) into office; I just don't think one can ignore the past in deciding which of the two is best.
posted by rushmc at 4:51 PM on July 20, 2004


OK... I actually stopped reading the site for a while because I got sick of the politics stuff. Let me sum up, if I may, the basic situation I see with political discussions:

- People want to discuss politics because it's important to them.
- People who discuss politics are usually more tied to their own belief system than to learning anything, or the truth, or in some cases even convincing others.

This isn't just an internet or MeFi phenomenon (although the facelessness of the Internet makes it much easier to have the discussion with much less civility). It takes place everywhere-- the reason it's said that politics, sex, and religion are the three things you don't discuss in polite conversation is because they're three things that are important to people, that people hold strong beliefs in, and that they don't want to have to think about them or change them. It's much easier to find something to hang your hat of beliefs on to justify it in your own mind than it is to try to find out what is actually true or right.

So a politics thread, or a religious thread, here will go that way: people throw back articles and quotes that they can point to to justify their own beliefs, a source of authority they trust on the issue, or attacks they can use on the other side's source of authority-- credibility questions, or nitpicking, or what have you, or logical fallacies they can fall back on, and as long as they can do that they don't have to think about the other side, but can dismiss them. If you can justify your beliefs in your own mind, you don't have to question them anymore.

Rare is the person willing to consider new evidence. Rarer still the one whose mind may be changed by it. In short, when it comes to political debate, people would rather win than be right.
posted by nath at 5:25 PM on July 20, 2004


Rare is the person willing to consider new evidence. Rarer still the one whose mind may be changed by it. In short, when it comes to political debate, people would rather win than be right.

I'm tired of fighting, so I'm demolished - that's the way / some make exhaustion a mode of expression and that's their way / I'm just a question knowing my answer I hope I'm wrong / but I know the answer it's four in the morning I'm right again / and I'm chinatown
posted by Quartermass at 5:29 PM on July 20, 2004


I can actually describe jammer's sadness quite well. It's the sadness of someone who doesn't want to face the fact that sometimes people just want to be assholes.

I recommend more "Jerry Springer". Or gin and tonics. That always helps me...gin and tonics...
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:57 PM on July 20, 2004


People who discuss politics are usually more tied to their own belief system than to learning anything, or the truth, or in some cases even convincing others.

Speak for yourself! Some of us discuss politics precisely in order to learn things and discover truth. I think those you describe are those who lecture (and hector), not those who discuss. It's an important distinction.
posted by rushmc at 7:19 PM on July 20, 2004


For sharpener.
posted by euphorb at 9:03 PM on July 20, 2004


It makes me indescribably sad that I didn't get here sooner to let you all know that I had a human anatomy class in college and in our lab, along with the cadavers, we did indeed have a large bucket o' cocks. Man, that dissection unit was memorable....
posted by donnagirl at 9:43 PM on July 20, 2004


Fucking Fuckers, fuck all of ...
*looks around, gathers senses and musters powers*

Inasmuch as a discourse represents a respite, however illusory and fleeting in the face of the shit-encrusted child abusing mechanisms of power and opression hanging over us all like so many oil derricks pumping the blood of future generations, it is a prerequisite that an internal logic and consistent cognitive protocol be observed. Thus while we complain about "PoliticsFilter" and "AxeGrindings", over the voices of countless screaming millions trapped in the abattoir of history, we in effect contribute to the debate's increasing vitriol and power. That is, whichever side you take, when you state your case (in the face of the howling storm of meaningless pain we call the world) you feed the dialectic process by lending it your ear and mouth.
posted by freebird at 9:52 PM on July 20, 2004


Wash your filthy mouth out, freebird. We don't want that kind of fucking language here!

FWIW, my religious, political, and social views have been significantly shaped through the BBS and 'net discussions I've participated in over the past twenty-odd years.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:46 PM on July 20, 2004


We don't want that kind of fucking language here!

What's wrong with "the abattoir of history"? Sheesh, touchy!

Ah, I see - I said "dialectic process"....you're right. That is dirty :)

*washes mouth with soap made from four horses of apocalypse*
posted by freebird at 10:52 PM on July 20, 2004


Me, I preferred the 'some guy's schlong !' thread better, but this was fun. I leave the viewer to go look it up.

We may not do (fill in the blank) well, but we absolutely rock with the dick humour.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:57 PM on July 20, 2004


Any of youse mind if I use the name Schlong Bucket for my new polka band?

I'll be sure to cut you a share of our massive profits commensurate with what you deserve. What say?
posted by chicobangs at 11:25 PM on July 20, 2004


I own the rights to that. Do it and I sue.
posted by dong_resin at 11:50 PM on July 20, 2004


People being jerks to each other is very depressing.

I'd just like to argue that there's a significant difference between getting hot over a real-world-issue debate and saying something mean, and just plain being an asshole for no reason (which also happens all the time in this life). I advocate a fair amount of latitude in what we can and cannot say while discussing serious issues. They do get hot but it's vitally important that we keep discussing them. For fuck's sake, when the world's leaders sit down to figure out these issues, their solution is frequently to bomb/kill/invade one another. Compared to that, a little profanity is practically a nice blow job.
posted by scarabic at 1:47 AM on July 21, 2004


Provided this sort of thing remains infrequent - am I the only person that thinks this sort of thing can be healthy for a community? Let's off some steam. Releases the pressure. Helps us remember we're people. Honestly, I like to see people get passionate from time to time. There's nothing worse than a bunch of people that don't care about anything.
posted by nthdegx at 4:35 AM on July 21, 2004


I am beginning to think everyone who posts to MeFi and/or MeTalk is a troll, but some of you take things written way too personally.
posted by mischief at 7:19 AM on July 21, 2004


So lying to the American public about matters of national security in order to start a virtually unilateral pre-emptive war is NOT something that should disqualify someone from serving as president?

No, it should... but, for me, it's not the overall deciding factor. I'm not completely convinced that Bush himself, actually lied. I think he was lied TO... or led to believe in an exagerration of the truth, and then passed it on to us. But I don't think he consciously decided to lie. It's not like the U.S. was the only country in the world that believed Iraq was hiding WMDs. It's just that our face is now the reddest. Even France and Germany thought Saddam had the weapons. So, while I'm not happy that the administration tried to sell the idea of a war to me through the threat of WMDs, it doesn't bother me that much that it didn't "pan out". They should have stuck with the true reason, the more legitimate reason, for going to war (in my opinion) - backing up the consequences of Resolution 1441. It's not as sexy as WMDs, but it was good enough for me. Alas...

Isn't the most important factor in selecting whom you are going to vote for supposed to be their CHARACTER?

Indeed. It just a matter of what you believe I guess. I don't believe that the election was "stolen" or "fixed". It was a damn close election, the closest ever perhaps (not sure). Had Gore won, I'm sure the other side would be making the same claims. If the election hadn't been so close, we would never have questioned it. Of course, you have to believe in the electoral college system too... which I do, so...

I just hope the winner this November wins by a non-controversial margin, with unprecedented turnout.
posted by Witty at 9:55 AM on July 21, 2004


I just hope the winner this November wins by a non-controversial margin, with unprecedented turnout.

That's about the only thing I'm hoping for any more, too.

It's gotten to the point where I almost don't care who wins any more. I just want it to be decisive, so we can stop it already with one side's overblown sense of mandate, and the other side's bitter sense of entitlement. Our country is strong. It can take four more years of mismanagement from either person, at this point. I'm not sure it can take four more years of this incredibly divisive climate.
posted by jammer at 12:08 PM on July 21, 2004


Or, to co-opt our slogan here... America: We're all in this together.

Only right now, we're stabbing each other in the back every chance we get. It's got to stop. A House Divided, and all that.
posted by jammer at 12:10 PM on July 21, 2004


The popular election will still end up being close, although at this point it looks as if Kerry will win the EC by a large margin. I think it's even possible that Bush could win the popular election while losing the EC. That's if he manages to get a very large number of conservative voters to show up at the polls in states that he already would have otherwise won. He's playing to his base (stupidly), so I think this is a real possibility. Would be funny if that happened, but I sure don't want it to. Best if Kerry wins the popular by a good enough margin as well as the EC. But I don't think you can reasonably expect anything like a landslide in the popular election. Bush's bottom is, I think, 40% of the electorate. He's going to get that portion of the popular vote, at least.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:35 PM on July 21, 2004


Metatalk: Why am I being fucked?
posted by tyro urge at 1:09 PM on July 21, 2004


Some of us discuss politics precisely in order to learn things and discover truth.

Well, good. I don't speak for myself, or anyone in particular, I speak to a condition I've seen among a large majority of people. "People" doesn't mean "everybody".

I welcome intelligent, reasoned debate. It's just a very difficult thing to maintain, especially as the number of people involved increases-- two or three can do it, but several dozen are going to have a hell of a time keeping things civil and reasoned, and it really only takes one person, obstinate and lecturing, to start the whole thing crashing down.
posted by nath at 1:28 PM on July 21, 2004


Isn't the most important factor in selecting whom you are going to vote for supposed to be their CHARACTER?
No wonder you ended up with the President that you did, if you vote for someone based on how much you like them. Wouldn't it be more important to consider the policies of the candidates?
posted by dg at 2:58 PM on July 21, 2004


Of course, but wouldn't a combination of the two be even better... policies AND character?
posted by Witty at 3:08 PM on July 21, 2004


Had Gore won, I'm sure the other side would be making the same claims.

Had Gore had a brother who was governor of Florida, perhaps we'd know. ;)

Thanks for the calm, non-reactionary responses, Witty. Makes for a refreshing change from the status quo around here lately. People with different views do NOT necessarily have to be antagonists!

it really only takes one person, obstinate and lecturing, to start the whole thing crashing down

Yes, and shouldn't that one person be discouraged from doing so BEFORE he/she trashes everything for everyone? That's the case I try to make (with little success).

Wouldn't it be more important to consider the policies of the candidates?

I said character could be considered the most important factor, not that it should be the only one. If someone is a lying scoundrel, then it does you little good to try to assess their policies, as they may very well not be revealing them honestly to you. They may tell you things like they are a "uniter, not a divider," or that they are a non-interventionist when it comes to international politics, or that they will lower government spending and won't raise taxes, or, or, or...

Also, as was recently mentioned, situations and circumstances may arise (e.g., 911) for which there are no pre-existing policies, in which case you want someone capable of responding well to the new situation, not befuddled or prone to overreact because they aren't equipped to cope with a new, unprepared challenge.
posted by rushmc at 3:48 PM on July 21, 2004


Yes, and shouldn't that one person be discouraged from doing so BEFORE he/she trashes everything for everyone?

Yes.

Unfortunately it rarely works, and many of them go on to land television and talk-radio shows.
posted by nath at 4:34 PM on July 21, 2004


lol
posted by rushmc at 7:28 PM on July 21, 2004


Best if Kerry wins the popular by a good enough margin as well as the EC. But I don't think you can reasonably expect anything like a landslide in the popular election. Bush's bottom is, I think, 40% of the electorate. He's going to get that portion of the popular vote, at least.

From Donkeyrising:

A related analysis that I highly recommend may be found today in Salon. Written by political scientist David Gopoian, "Maxed-Out GOP" argues that:
There are many reasons for the Democrats to be hopeful heading into Boston next week, but the most important of these may be that the Bush campaign has maximized its potential and trails in the polls. There is a boundary to the limits of any political coalition, and the Bush-Cheney campaign is near the edge of its electoral reach.

The Bush campaign has mobilized its core base of conservative white male Republicans very effectively. Now what? Now is when Karl Rove wishes he were Mary Beth Cahill, John Kerry's campaign manager. From nearly every angle that the Bush strategists peer, the turf they view for expanding their coalition is decidedly less friendly than the landscape enjoyed by Team Kerry.
Exactly. Gopoian goes on to offer some very interesting analysis based on estimating expected Republican and Democratic support from key voter groups and comparing currently observed Bush and Kerry support with the expected levels of support. (He doesn't go into detail on the methodology for his estimations, but it's basically done by looking at the partisan composition of different groups and combining that with historical patterns of partisan support for Democrats and Republicans.)

Gopoian shows that Bush has large shortfalls in support among independents (15 points below expectations), moderates (6 points lower) and liberals (11 points). He is maxed out among conservatives and is unlikely to make more gains there. Kerry, on the other hand, needs to make comparativelly modest progress among Democrats and moderate-to-liberal whites. As Gopoain puts it: "...Kerry needs to make small gains among friendly voters, while Bush needs to make huge gains among relatively unfriendly voters."

Not so good for the Bush team. Gopoian also has some interesting things to say about the demographics of the friendly voters Kerry needs to make progress among. Basically, we're talking about whites of moderate-to-low levels of education--more the white working class than, say, white professionals.

posted by y2karl at 11:09 PM on July 21, 2004


Yes, I read Ruy religiously. As I wrote to scarabic a few weeks back, Ruy Teixeira's DR blog is a great resource for closely watching the polls. Pollkatz is also a great resource.

I'm not sure what you think in that is responding to my quote, though. What's happening in the swing states and with independents is why I think there's little doubt at this point that Kerry will win the EC by a pretty big margin. I'll even predict that Kerry will win Ohio.

But people should always keep in mind how little of the population really is in play. Nixon's approval rating never went below 35%. Outside of circumstances even more extraordinary than Nixon's, it's hard to see that somewhere near that number isn't effectively the absolute bottom for a Republican. Much of Bush's numbers are in the low forties, approval overall is mid-forties.

One of the reasons that playing to the base by the Repubs is not going to be a winning strategy for them is that the Dems are equally, if not more, energized than the Repubs are. For every Christian conservative they get to the election booth that otherwise would have stayed home, there's going to be a Democrat voter. I think we'll see the largest voter turnout in a Presidential election in a generation this year. But, also, my point about the popular election is that, in my opinion, the biggest concentrations of Bush's conservative base are in states that are already "red" states, states that aren't in play. It's entirely possible that he could really get those people mobilized, I suppose, and that could result in enough people to win the popular election, by a small margin, for him. I think this is unlikely, but it's conceivable.

More likely is the popular election will be something like 53-47 to Kerry. But Kerry is going to win the EC by a large margin. I think the election is effectively already over. Based upon historical patterns, it sure looks like it is. Wild cards are another terrorist attack or capturing Osama. But I'm not convinced (at all) that the first would benefit Bush, and the second's benefit will be much smaller than most people expect.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:26 PM on July 21, 2004


I refuse to be optimistic about ousting Bush until he's moved out of the whitehouse, grown old in shame, and died. At that point maybe I'll start to imagine a world where he's not at the reins of America. I'm just too scarred by the horror of his administration to ever think positively again. After all, his coming to power was worse than my most dire existing nightmares. Call me gun shy but didn't he already steal the election once?

Nixon's approval ratings may never have dipped under 35%, but Carter's definitely did. It's totally the economy (stupid). Given that we're hurting bad but not miserably, and there is a huge amount of spin relating to the economic "recovery" plus all the terror hijinx, *and* the moralization of issues like gay marriage, etc... I think there's a lot of room for a Bush coup, still. There are months left. And major corners to turn yet, like whether Cheney will stay on the ticket, whether Osama will be "found" and whether a major terrorist attack will occur.

Keep those predictions under your hat, EB, if only out of good old fashioned superstition.
posted by scarabic at 12:26 AM on July 22, 2004


Take it to Metafilter, guys. [/pedant]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:12 AM on July 22, 2004


Yes, I read Ruy religiously. As I wrote to scarabic a few weeks back, Ruy Teixeira's DR blog is a great resource for closely watching the polls.

Yes, and as you wrote another time in another context, your blog got by linked once by Josh at Talking Points Memo.
posted by y2karl at 7:08 AM on July 22, 2004


... and you people ask why I like MetaTalk ...
posted by snarfodox at 8:33 AM on July 22, 2004


Honestly, I have no clue what you're trying to say, y2karl.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:39 AM on July 22, 2004


I think he's having one of his weeks where he just goes around pissing on people's feet at random, EB. Pay it no mind...he'll stop again after a few days.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:21 PM on July 22, 2004


*gives karl noogies*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:25 PM on July 22, 2004


I find that last statement indescribably delicious.
posted by wendell at 6:56 PM on July 22, 2004


Goldwater did against the Civil Rights Act, which did lock up the segregationist vote for the next four decades for the Republican party, which will always be a stain on his record.

He felt that part of the 1964 Act overextended the role of government.
Be that as it may, his record speaks for itself.

He founded the Arizona Air National Guard as a racially integrated unit. He integrated his family business, and was a founder of the Arizona NAACP, and remained a member until his death. (I'm not sure how impressed he'd be with the left-wing deathtrap the NAACP has become today.) And he strongly supported both the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts.

But here's something noteworthy and often deceitfully omitted:

Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Republicans Passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
posted by hama7 at 2:03 PM on July 23, 2004


Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And most of those who did--Strom Thurmon, Jesse Helms, et al--then joined the Republican party after 1964 . Where they stayed.
posted by y2karl at 3:42 PM on July 23, 2004


Where they stayed.

If you can't beat 'em join 'em? Don't foist yer Dixiecrats on the Grand Old Party.

Huzzah.
posted by hama7 at 6:44 PM on July 23, 2004


hey everyone, what's a six letter word for someone who's hardcore?
posted by angry modem at 3:43 PM on August 18, 2004


« Older Webvisions conference has passed   |   DC/Baltimore Gaming Meetup Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments