?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Earlier Spew | More Recent Spew

Why am I not at all surprised?

I haven't watched any of the debates. I'll just get that out of the way up front. I'm not interested in blah-blah about how horrible a person this makes me, so keep it to yourselves.

That having been said, I've found it amusing to read other peoples' critiques of what went on during the debates. You know, who won them, how well each candidate came across, etc.

And what I'm completely unsurprised at is that those of you who already liked Bush before the debates think he won at least 2 of the 3 debates, that he came across as a "regular guy," that he acquitted himself well, that he is clearly the right man for another four years of the job, and that Kerry is none of those things, and may in fact be a liar, a cheater, and a card-carrying flip-flopper.

And another thing I'm completely unsurprised at is that those of you who already liked Kerry before the debates think he won at least 2 of the 3 debates, that he came across as "more presidential" than Bush, that he answered the questions well, that he is clearly the better man for the next four years, and that Bush is a blathering idiot, and may in fact be a criminal, a liar, and a card-carrying antichrist.

The third thing I'm not at all surprised at is that those of you who were convinced that neither candidate is worth the DNA he's blueprinted by are still convinced of this fact. Those of you who fall in this camp are most closely allied with my own views, and you seem to see (as I do) that neither side is capable of telling/representing the complete truth because it's all spin. The truth (if such a thing can even exist) lies somewhere between what Bush & Company are saying and what Kerry and Company are saying. Who you believe is telling the truth pretty much depends on your outlook.

I only wish some of you could read the reviews back-to-back like I have been. First a right-winger talking about how Bush clearly won the debate, with points listed to support both that thesis and the corresponding antithesis (that Kerry is an idiot), followed closely by a left-winger talking about how Kerry clearly won the debate, with points listed to support both that thesis and the corresponding antithesis (that Bush is an idiot). Occasionally followed by a centrist who says "They both suck." :)

It makes me chuckle.


Atheists Are People, Too  Antispam  

Comments

( 20 hisses — Hiss at me! )
(Deleted comment)
dorsai
Oct. 15th, 2004 01:25 am (UTC)
Hmmm. A couple of thoughts:

It's tough to be objective in these things. As a Bush supporter, I'm going to naturally be more attuned to what he's saying; when Kerry speaks, pretty much all I can hear is a buzzing noise.

Despite that, I don't think very many people on either side actually think either of these guys are telling the truth; I know for certain that being a Bush supporter doesn't automatically mean drinking the Kool-Aid. Many of us would almost certainly have voted for an alternative, had there been one during the GOP primary season.
kaasirpent
Oct. 15th, 2004 12:40 pm (UTC)
I know it's tough to be objective. I have a friend who is always bemoaning the lack of objective reporting on pretty much any topic you care to name, and what I always point out is that there is no such thing. It can be something as subtle as the choice of one word over another when writing a story ("blathering" vs. "long-winded"), but the author's opinions will come through. And if they don't, the result is boring and impossible to read.

My comment was just that it's amusing to me to see just how concretely it is demonstrated that two groups with two opposing opinions watching the same show see two completely different shows. :)
biophile6
Oct. 15th, 2004 03:00 am (UTC)
blah blah?
Ya know what?

No, you dont get to scold people who watched the debates, and pontificate about how stupid we all are, when you have no interest in the process. At least, not without some mention of how absurd this position is, in itself. How incredibly arrogant to pass judgement on people trying to see some good in the world, trying make the process work and talk about it.

I'll defend your right to say whatever you like, that's American, but that doesnt mean I agree with it. And I dont. They're completely different scenarios on dozens of points.

Laugh at someone else--someone who doesnt actually give a damn.
kaasirpent
Oct. 15th, 2004 12:53 pm (UTC)
Re: blah blah?
I hope the post accomplishes the intended result, and not just pissing off someone at whom it wasn't even aimed (since you have never made a single comment one way or the other about the debates in your journal, that I've noticed). The intended result was to (one hopes) get people to see that their own biases are reflected in who they see as the winner. I see it all day at work, too, with one person pontificating on how Kerry won the thing hands-down and another separately telling me how Bush did.

You, of course, have every right to disagree with my means. But you can hardly disagree with the fact that I'm right: your opinions going into the debate color how you see the outcome.

Never once did I say anyone was stupid (read carefully). Never once did I indicate I had no interest in the process--just in the uselessness of the debates when all they do is spin spin spin.
biophile6
Oct. 15th, 2004 01:41 pm (UTC)
Re: blah blah?
Yeah I know that was your intent, and I for many reasons only state my polticial choice once, argue the point, and move on. Thanks for noticing that.

I'm still bugged though. Ok, so it might be hyperbole that I think you actually beleive people are stupid, and you never said it. It just feels that way. Theres ridicule involved, and its just subtle enough that you have plausible deniability, so I wont go after it. Thats my impression and I'm not backing down.

Mostly I'm bugged because you didnt watch, and you're passing judgement on people who did and have an opinion. Likely, I'll agree that most of the people didnt change their opinion, but this is known, 90% are already decided this late in the election. You'll hear that from 9 of 10 people you talk to, so the point was made by many already. Not a big deal, its valid, and yes I dont dispute that a lot of people will be in this bucket. As far as spin goes, everynbody's been saying that since Chris Matthews did immediately after the first debate.

In my experience people won't change their opinion about anything if you make it a fault, they just get more stubborn about holding ground. You probably havent done something good unless the people you are talking about are already amazing and flexible.

I really don't think we're gonna see eye to eye about this. Its such a huge election, so polar, the lines are so clearly drawn and there are only two strategic choices, that any other vote at this point is academic. The time for debate was 18 months ago, and anybody who steps up to the plate 2 weeks before the elction and says its all crap, in my mind holds no respect, I blow them off completely.

My apologies for gettign overheated, I just didnt like being told my opnion didnt matter, that I should shut up about it and suck down what you said, and theres no room for debate.
telleestmavie
Oct. 15th, 2004 02:37 pm (UTC)
Re: blah blah?
Sounds like somebody's got sand in their vagina.
kaasirpent
Oct. 15th, 2004 04:27 pm (UTC)
Re: blah blah?
I just didnt like being told my opnion didnt matter, that I should shut up about it and suck down what you said, and theres no room for debate.

Okay, you have a point. I could have worded that better. I have this friend who has been berating me for years because I don't hang on every word of every politician like he does, and it's that kind of thing I was calling "blah blah." Yeah, I'm apathetic when it comes to following it, because I have a life to live and politics flies WAY under my radar. Not everyone agrees. More power to 'em.
trilobits
Sep. 9th, 2014 01:08 am (UTC)
Re: blah blah?
It makes me sad to come back to this and read this. politics divides people. sorry man. we get worked up. its also been a long time since. much more centrist and balanced since this time. hope you're well. apologies.
kaasirpent
Sep. 9th, 2014 02:02 pm (UTC)
Re: blah blah?
Water, bridge, etc. :)

I only remembered it (and referenced it in a later blog) because it resonated with me. You had a point, and it was a point well taken. :)
vulcan_rc
Oct. 15th, 2004 04:19 am (UTC)
It is clear that Kaasirpent is a closet Kerry supporter.

His left wing bias is displayed in his use of the ampersand in "Bush & Company", while he clearly spells out the a-n-d in "Kerry and Company".

We've known for a long time that the reptiles have been in the tank for the Democrats -- now we have proof!

< /sarcasm>
kaasirpent
Oct. 15th, 2004 12:34 pm (UTC)
What's funny is that I noticed that &/and thing and was going to edit and fix it...but now it would look like I'm trying to HIDE something. :)
dorsai
Oct. 15th, 2004 03:04 pm (UTC)
No no...Kaa is a stealth Republican; you can read his journal for proof.

Proof: He clearly loves his family, helps out a lot, et cetera et cetera. Strong family values.

And which party is the party of family values? The Republicans!

Q.E.D.
ian_smith
Oct. 15th, 2004 04:57 am (UTC)
You didn't miss much. I watched all three, and I heard everything in the first 10 minutes on the first day.

The rest is both parties repeating the same thing over and over and over and over.

Bush: I created X million jobs!
Kerry: Bush lost X million jobs!
Truth: You take the diffrence between jobs created and jobs lost and THAT is the number you should be saying.

I hope they both loose and we elect Nader. Our country *deserves* that kind of horror.

Our election system is horribly broken. Go here and make this happen: http://www.electionmethods.org/index.htm
kaasirpent
Oct. 15th, 2004 12:35 pm (UTC)
You didn't miss much. I watched all three, and I heard everything in the first 10 minutes on the first day.

Exactly. Each and every one of us could have written everything said by both sides because it's the same rhetoric they've been spouting for the last year.
winkymonkey
Oct. 15th, 2004 12:32 pm (UTC)
I didn't listen to that mess either. Didn't have to. You could hear it all repeated ad nauseum the next day anyway. I will vote for Kerry, not because he is so wonderful but because he isn't Bush. I cannot watch Bush on TV or listen to him on radio. I'd have a strong desire to blast either to smithereens. Someone sent me an email attachment where Hermann Munster morphs into John Kerry. I decided I would rather vote for Hermann Munster than Bush. All the promises they make are just so much rhetoric anyway. They may support whatever causes they choose but without cooperation from Congress, it's all empty anyway.

I'll shut up now.
skye_ds
Oct. 15th, 2004 03:49 pm (UTC)
"If the Gods had meant for me to vote, They would have given me Candidates!"

;)

(I am an Independent, leaning mostly Libertarian)
dorsai
Oct. 15th, 2004 04:55 pm (UTC)
If you missed the original debate, this is equally informative, and much more fun:

http://www.miniclip.com/hiphopdebate.htm
craftsman
Oct. 15th, 2004 06:53 pm (UTC)
You know I had to chime in...
I do agree that someone who is disinterested in the process shouldn't really criticize those who are involved and interested. You have the right to say what you want. I have the right to listen, ignore, ridicule, or attempt to refute your opinions. And yes, much of the 'who won, who lost' depends on your opinion of the candidate. Right now, the polls show only 4% of likely voters are undecided. That was the intended audience, not those who will stay home or who have already made up their minds.

And much of whether you think a candidate is spinning or not depends on your definitions. Should government jobs be counted toward total jobs gained/lost? Should military spending cuts be classified as cuts in overall government spending? Your opinion on these underlying issues will determine who you think is telling the truth. The list is nearly endless. That is why I think it is important to be engaged and involved in the process. Unless you actually know the definitions of the underlying terms, all you will see is candidates talking in sound bites.

As for why I am interested in the process.
1)It is fun to watch.
2)I have children and am concerned about the world they will live in.
3)It is too expensive not to.

telleestmavie
Oct. 15th, 2004 08:11 pm (UTC)
What did I tell you about getting into the politics? Bad Kaa...bad bad Kaa. Now...go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

Jeezes, people....lighten up. The snakey-dude made an observation about how human nature is directing people's reactions to the debates. And so-freaking-what if he's amused by it? At least he's not foaming at the mouth, barking down anybody and everybody who might have a different opinion than his. And he is allowed his opinion here -- this is his forum.

I guess what I find amusing about this thread is how defensive and derogatory the hard core political enthusiasts have gotten over something so benign. You have your opinions, but nobody else can have theirs, and you take personal offense when they state something counter to what you believe. Have your opinions, go to the polls, and vote your conscience. But don't beat up on those who don't share in your devotion to your candidate. And may the most popular man win.
( 20 hisses — Hiss at me! )

Latest Month

April 2017
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Paulina Bozek