[quote name='Strell']What the hell country and era are you living in? How many stupid stories came out of the election about this EXACT thing? Won't vote for Obama because he's not a woman. Won't vote for Obama because he's black. Won't vote for Obama because he's a turrist. That was ALL we heard about. It wasn't about understanding policies, it was about picking a winner.[/quote]
Welcome to the American media and the American voter.
The American media has clear agendas, some of which you outline.
The American voter stopped voting based on pure policies decades ago. The election is very much American Idol on a much bigger and more serious scale. Seriously. It's more a popularity contest than anything. If you want to prove me wrong, find at least one classically "ugly" president in the past century.
Hell, Bush won because he was the guy people wanted to have a beer with. That's just insane. It's like picking a significant other based on what color shoes they had on. Has nothing to do with policies, and to assume the average American is smart enough to consider all of that is to prove you're completely out of touch with reality.
No, Bush won because to more than half of active voters, there wasn't a better option. You can derive about all you need to know about American politics from that, imo.
If you really believe Americans are that stupid, and Bush won because that's a guy they'd like to have a beer with, then why did Obama win?
Limbaugh did it on a NATIONAL scale. MULTIPLE times. And didn't pause for one second any time he did it. Won't apologize, won't think for a second about what he's actually said. And he's only going to do it MORE. That's ridiculous - when you have a voice that reaches that many people who hang on your words, you OUGHT to have a responsibility to understand that your words can carry influence. Instead, he throws bullshit around ....for what, exactly? It doesn't motivate people to pay attention to politics, it doesn't call for education or study of your political/social/cultural history, it doesn't energize people to be more active in any sort of helpful way, it simply breeds contempt and anger. Nothing good comes of it. Nothing.
Admittedly I haven't followed the Limbaugh thing that closely, being out of the country. But I did happen upon an article where he explained what he said, and it was more complicated than simply "I'm bitter, my team didn't win, and I want Obama to run the country into the ground!" like you make it sound. I don't really agree with his explanation, but there is more to it than that.
There's no goddamn excuse for it, outside of the fact that advertisers and the station manager are getting pizzaid to have some fat man spew a lot of hateful rhetoric.
Exactly. That's what Americans want. You stated it in your first paragraph with "all we see are stories of...." It's not just Limbaugh guilty of this, it's practically all media.
We just got through an election where one half tried to incense their base using "that other one" rhetoric and making no qualms about racist epithets being thrown around. They boo at the mere mention of Obama's name. It's on an entirely different level. And it's still prevalent and active, and will be so for another four years.
You don't think they boo at democratic conventions either, at the mention of names? Have you been to one?
The logical thing to do would be to voice your concerns and disagreement, but sit back and understand that the ultimate goal of progress is what counts, not some arbitrary bullshit party lines.
This is key to this discussion, I think. Progress? It all really depends on your definition of "progress". Most conservatives don't want "progress" as far as it involves relying on government intervention.
Build rodes, fine. Protect people, fine. Don't take their money, good. Treat everyone fairly, yes. Beyond that, don't empower the government to do much of anything else. To a conservative, that's all the "progress" they want to tolerate in this country.
The other side, mostly, has always wanted, and still wants,
fundamental changes to how this country is set up and run. That's progress to them. So if that's progress to you, and you want to see extreme magnitudes of change to government in the form of growing it, then maybe for a brief moment you can understand why some on the other side say they hope Obama fails. It's perhaps because nearly everything he has said he stands for, they don't.
That's really no excuse though, to want failure. That's where you and I agree. Where we disagree, it seems, is how prevalent the "I hope he fails" attitude really is.
But I can't expect that out of people because people are STUPID. You said so yourself about the distinction in failure, but I don't think the general populace is smart enough to make. Anything higher than the lowest common denominator of Sesame Street and McDonald's is asking for trouble.
Well I can't disagree with you there.
All I'm
ing asking for is for people not be butthurt. In fact, I'm asking the people who just got done telling me to get over it to do the same themselves.
Again, you wouldn't believe the bullshit going on down here in terms of butthurtedness. It's on a level that I haven't seen since I was in preschool.
In summary, it seems to me that wherever you are, or whatever you are exposed to, is an extreme minority. For whatever reason, you are exposed to some extreme elements and are only able to see extreme elements from "the other side". I say this because I live in a state that didn't vote for Obama, and I haven't met anyone that has said they hope he fails.
[quote name='The Crotch']I think you just moved the goalposts before Koggit even got the ball...[/QUOTE]
Yes I did, hence the smiley.
But really, if Obama is as centrist as he makes it sound, there should be dozens of more left-wing members of congress.
Oh and strictly analyzing voting record. Not rhetoric or stated policies. I should have said "Find me 5 members of congress with a more left-wing voting record".
:lol: @ this country.
