Furthering the Politics of Hate

or: Do You Think Before You Rant?

Published on November 8, 2004 By CrispE In Politics

The 2004 Election has been the most emotional in my lifetime, perhaps in history besides Lincoln-Douglas in 1860. (Of course, a bit of a war broke out over that one.) However, now that the election is over, the politicians and candidates have called for reconcilliation and healing of the rift between right and left. Before you shout me down telling me to "shut up" (thank you Mr. O'Reilly) consider a few things you are doing by the efforts on both sides to make our country totally contentious and hateful.

First, Democrats: there are efforts under way to get a review of the election results and so writing that the party should are unnecesary. Republicans don't want to hear this, I'm sure, but it would seem that the number of complaints is outweighing the "sour grapes" outcry. Will this lead to an "election reversal"? Who knows? But the point is that the effort is underway.

Second, Republicans: It isn't going to heal the country or the rift by telling people to leave the country if they don't love President Bush. Americans should unite behind our commonality as Americans and our attempts to be the best country we can be. That includes the Democrats and Independents who you might disagree with on the election results. You don't want the opposition to leave as that will only create a most hateful situation because the ones who leave will be the moderates, not the extremists.

Third, Republicans and Democrats: No matter what you might feel right now in terms of the election, the government is not a closed system. You may question, protest, debate, petition and be as active politically as you choose for the next 4 years. This election was not about the end of the future. This election (as in all national elections) will be overturned in 2008 when we elect a new president, regardless of the party he represents.

Until then remember, we are all Americans. We may or may not work together as politically as we could, but we have a right to be whom we are and do what we do. Democrat and Republican.

Comments (Page 2)

CrispE

on Nov 09, 2004

T B:

You're correct when you say that moderates weren't calling for extreme measures. But historically, it is the moderates that make those kinds of moves because extremists stay and fight, moderates slip away under cover of darkness because the situation becomes so vitriolic that they can't stand either side.

I think this is a rift that will be very difficult to close because so many believe that the world is turned upside down. I think the voices you hear on the left are: we can't trust the government or the press, so what are we going to do to see our world?

They might have a point.

CrispE

on Nov 09, 2004

dabe:

Well, I for one (a real "freedom of the speech" advocate) believe that it's ok to rave as long as you let your reader know what you're doing so that they consider the emotional release as the goal and not the people whom might be hurt be the words. We all have our moments and I am not immune to the frustrations presented.

As for the press, the problem has become that the way the "argument (debate) is framed." If you present a program like "The Mission of George Bush" (CNN) then you either have to balance it with a profile of Mr. Kerry or not present it? Well....maybe.

The thing is, too often the argument is presented in such a way as it either confusing (too much info in a short time) or complex to handle in a 3-5 minute section but we live in a soundbyte world where the viewer often wants to be "told" what to think, not have doors opened to their own inquiry.

Always, on a personal note, keep fighting to find something to believe in, something that explains how the world is. I probably have read more in the last few years than the previous 10. But I know I'm better for the journey. I suspect so are you.

drmiler

on Nov 09, 2004

Reply #12 By: CrispE - 11/8/2004 11:16:40 PM
drmiler:

I would suggest that the reason that the main links people are giving are not mainstream media is that the mainstream media has too much to lose by angering the White House. You might think this is silly but there is a real growing feeling that the media, except for obvious opinion shows (Capital Gang on Saturday night had a "suggestion" of this) that if you anger the White House, they act to exclude you from stories.

This is where you thinking is faulty. If they jump in and Kerry takes it then *who* in the white house is going to complain? By your logic your insinuating that Kerry doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell.

drmiler

on Nov 09, 2004

Reply #15 By: dabe - 11/9/2004 7:01:23 AM
My frustration is that people rely on mainstream pablum without doing their own research. When I first started posting here, I tried to be respectful. I posted articles that I was hoping that others would at least read and consider. What I got was complete venom from the conservatives. They seemed to have no qualms about insulting me, so I return that attitude in kind. I have no qualms about insulting certain posters here (you know who you are). Bottom line - I do think before I rant. And, I will continue to rant for as long as it takes to get these bums out of office. If it takes all of the four years, so be it. If it can be accomplished earlier, like maybe Cheney will die from a heart attack and Bush gets impeached, then great. But I will never lay down my attitude (I don't carry arms), and succumb to their side. If you're saying I should give up my core values and morals, it ain't ever going to happen.

And who gets to decide just who has the *right* slant on a particular item? You?

CrispE

on Nov 09, 2004

drmiler:

Well, they don't think fuss about the voting is going to amount to anything. You think the media is about bias, but really, it's about advertising and selling commercial time. So a network that would make a big deal of the voting "situation" and then realized nothing is happening would make a commercial suicide.

The bias issue therefore plays to the White House's favor.

dabe

on Nov 09, 2004

And who gets to decide just who has the *right* slant on a particular item? You?

Yup. Me.

Seriously, it's more than just about "slant". It's about gathering all the facts you can. weighing them against perceptions, and deciding how to proceed. Without gathering the facts, the only thing you have then are perceptions, and that's when it becomes "slant."

dabe

on Nov 09, 2004

Always, on a personal note, keep fighting to find something to believe in, something that explains how the world is. I probably have read more in the last few years than the previous 10. But I know I'm better for the journey. I suspect so are you.

Thanks, CrispE. Often it's only about the journey. The journey becomes a quest and a goal. In other words, knowledge begs the need for more knowledge, the asker learns to never stop asking. The most important thing is knowing which questions to ask. Yada yada yada............ You get my drift. Yeah, I do think I'm better off for the journey. It's unending. It should never end.

Holy Sh*t! I'm getting wayyyyy philosophical................................

CrispE

on Nov 09, 2004

Journey on, Dabe!

BTW: I am 52 11/12 along on mine, been around most of the U.S. and Canada, England, still looking to put together a better understanding of what this life thing is all about!

dabe

on Nov 09, 2004

My journey is 54-1/12 years long.

Go to Manopeace's blog about introducing members. I've posted a bit about me. I'd like to see what you've got to say about yourself.

dabe

on Nov 09, 2004

Manopeace's article is here http://manopeace.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=34373

CrispE

on Nov 09, 2004

dabe:

I posted. It would appear we got the state surrounded, hehehe.

Daiwa

on Nov 10, 2004

I would suggest that the reason that the main links people are giving are not mainstream media is that the mainstream media has too much to lose by angering the White House.

That's one of the funniest things I've heard in awhile. If they didn't long ago anger the White House, they never will. Have you been watching or reading the MSM since the election? Aside from endless funeral dirges for the death of democracy and the end of the world as we know it, they've taken the news of Bush's re-election pretty well. Do you think for a minute that if there was significant and credible evidence of voter fraud that the media so distraught over Bush's election wouldn't jump all over it? How could they possibly fear the stumblebum us retards voted for?

Cheers,
Daiwa

T B

on Nov 10, 2004

Do you think for a minute that if there was significant and credible evidence of voter fraud that the media so distraught over Bush's election wouldn't jump all over it?

I saw Juan Williams and Mara Liasson on the Brit Hume show. They gave this "voter fraud" subject about 90 seconds of discussion (apparently they are getting numerous e-mails about it). Both Juan and Mara (of NPR fame, hardly conservative Republican supporters) pretty much discounted it as fringe ranting and stated in no uncertain terms that there is no evidence in any of the e-mail that supports the assertions. So even a couple of the champions of the left, in the media, agree with your statement.

CrispE

on Nov 10, 2004

Daiwa:

News content is "framed" by the networks. So, if you report on Christians supporting Bush then you suggest that any Supreme Court nominee has to be against Rowe-Wade. If you, a conservative, see the report, you think they are bashing the right. If a liberal sees it, they see media bias against a "woman's right to choose."

So, yes, I do believe that rather than talk about voting irregularities that might anger the White House, they will talk about issues that wil cause all of us to watch and thus allow them to sell more car ads and coin sets (made from the soil of "ground zero"!)

Daiwa

on Nov 10, 2004

News content is "framed" by the networks. So, if you report on Christians supporting Bush then you suggest that any Supreme Court nominee has to be against Rowe-Wade. If you, a conservative, see the report, you think they are bashing the right. If a liberal sees it, they see media bias against a "woman's right to choose." So, yes, I do believe that rather than talk about voting irregularities that might anger the White House, they will talk about issues that wil cause all of us to watch and thus allow them to sell more car ads and coin sets (made from the soil of "ground zero"!)

I wish I could understand this, CrispE, but it just makes no sense to me at all. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that the NYT or other liberal-minded press organs have thrown in the towel & are trying to "avoid angering the White House." I listened to a press conference by one of the senior military spokesmen just yesterday concerning the operation going on in Falujah and a bunch of the questions were just as prejudicial and idiotic as ever. Many in the press are simply so far gone there's no hope of them ever gaining contact with reality and civility again.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!