avva | they are sorry (политическое)

Вот удивительно тошнотворный сайт, по-моему.

Что-то в этом есть очень пошлое, может, пресмыкание такое, не знаю.

From:

igorlord.livejournal.com

Strange that you think so.
I find nothing wrong with that.
I'd send them me picture with my "sorry" if I were not lazzy about it.
(I did change about 50 votes in Ohio from Bush to Kerry, but that was not enough.)

I do want to appoligize for America very much, though.
I was surprised myself in how regressive "the rest of this great country" is.

From:

avva.livejournal.com

*shrug* Of course they are regressive, how could they not be! They didn't vote for your guy!

From:

igorlord.livejournal.com

No, they are regressive not because they voted fro the "wrong" guy. They are regressive because of their REASONS why they voted for him.

A few people voted for him because they thought he is better for:
a) Israel
b) Free Trade
c) Social Security (they want it privatized)

Although I disagre with these people, I do think they are reasonable ones.

But a VAST majority voted for him because of:
A) his Evangellical "moral values" (read: wants to force others follow his values). That's regressive!

B) "He'll beat the crap out of arabs and will not give a f#%ck about the rest of the world, while doing so". That's regressive and just pathetic, too.

From:

avva.livejournal.com

But a VAST majority voted for him because of: A) his Evangellical "moral values" (read: wants to force others follow his values).

Nah, that's just bullshit you read in some bullshit paper or whatever. Read the actual data; the percentage of those who voted for Bush because of "moral values", as a percentage of those who voted for Bush, is nowhere near VAST majority or even a simple majority. It's true that the vast majority of those who cited moral values as their top priority voted for Bush and not for Kerry, but that's an entirely different matter and only a moron would confuse between them.

B) "He'll beat the crap out of arabs and will not give a f#%ck about the rest of the world, while doing so". That's regressive and just pathetic, too.

It's also bullshit as well. At least with moral values you can talk about exit polls or whatever. This stuff is just off the top of your head.

From:

igorlord.livejournal.com

Yes, we can look at CNN exit poll, which says that 22% of voters came in with "Moral Values" as #1 issue. Unfortunantely, the poll did not have a check box for "Demonstrating our strength to Terrorists" or "Installing Democrasy in the Middle East". I bet quite a noticable number of people would chose one of those two. Moreover, even if one of those two were the 2nd most important issue for people, I still think it is pathetic.

But you are correct that I do not have the exact statistics for this assertion.

But even if you are correct, and only 25% of Americans voted their Evangellical Moral Values + Let's Get the Arabs policy, this is still a huge number of dangerous lunatics, while clearly not a majority.

(By the way, according to that same exit poll, 74% of American Jews voted Kerry. Most of these people care very much about Israel.)

From:

avva.livejournal.com

with "Moral Values" as #1 issue. Unfortunantely, the poll did not have a check box for "Demonstrating our strength to Terrorists" or "Installing Democrasy in the Middle East". I bet quite a noticable number of people would chose one of those two. Moreover, even if one of those two were the 2nd most important issue for people, I still think it is pathetic.

I don't think either of those is pathetic if done right. But perhaps your idea of the right policy is to demonstrate your weakness to terrorists and get chummy with dictators in the Middle East. To each your own, I say.

But even if you are correct, and only 25% of Americans voted their Evangellical Moral Values + Let's Get the Arabs policy, this is still a huge number of dangerous lunatics, while clearly not a majority.

No, that's not "if I am correct", that's "if your incredibly twisted to beyond all recognition version of what I said is correct", and it's not correct of course, but what of it? I didn't say anything about "moral values" being evangelical (for a lot of people they aren't). And if you think that all those people who would've been for "installing democracy in the Middle East" really want "Let's Get the Arabs" (which seems to be true in the face of your deft substitution), then someone here is pathetic, sure.

Please don't twist what I said and then attribute it to me.

(By the way, according to that same exit poll, 74% of American Jews voted Kerry. Most of these people care very much about Israel.)

Good for them. I don't think Kerry would've been much worse for Israel than Bush; as I stated before, I believe the difference, even if real, would've been very minor.

From:

igorlord.livejournal.com

Unfortunantely, the poll did not have a check box for "Demonstrating our strength to Terrorists" or "Installing Democrasy in the Middle East".

I don't think either of those is pathetic if done right. But perhaps your idea of the right policy is to demonstrate your weakness to terrorists and get chummy with dictators in the Middle East.

I think that "Demonstrating our strength to Terrorists" is pointless and childish, since the harder you push, the harder they push back, and there is no need to show anything to them. "Installing Democrasy in the Middle East" is an empty slogan, and an invasion is clearly a wrong way to go about it.

I am not sure what you mean by "demonstrate your weakness". Also, what does "get chummy with dictators" mean, and if it includes "leaving them alone in isolation", what's wrong with that? Years of isolation worked fine with the Soviet Union dictatorship (and it was a MUCH bigger threat to America than Iraq under Saddam).

But even if you are correct, and only 25% of Americans voted their Evangellical Moral Values + Let's Get the Arabs policy, this is still a huge number of dangerous lunatics, while clearly not a majority.

that's "if your incredibly twisted to beyond all recognition version of what I said is correct"

You refered to the exit poll statistics, which said that 81% of 22% = 18% of voters voted for Bush mainly on the bases of his stand on "moral values". I think we can safely add a few more percentage points to that for people who picked some other issue as #1 but also strongly support Bush's "moral values" platform. And then add a few more points for the voters who would had agreed with "get the Arabs" (these probably come from "Terrorism" and "Security" categories). That's how I come up with 25%.

I didn't say anything about "moral values" being evangelical (for a lot of people they aren't).

It does not really matter what you did or did not say. Those who stand with Bush on the "moral value" issue support his agenda:
a) CRIMINALIZE abortion
b) DENY a right to marry to gays and lesbians
c) PROHIBIT stem cell research
d) WITHDRAW *all* public money from international groups that advocate contraception

These people are not satisfied by their ability to have their own values and live by them. They want to FORCE *others* to live by those values. That's nothing but the most pure form of Evangellical values.

And if you think that all those people who would've been for "installing democracy in the Middle East" really want "Let's Get the Arabs" (which seems to be true in the face of your deft substitution), then someone here is pathetic, sure.

Good, at least it seems that we agree that "Let's Get the Arabs" foreign policy is pathetic. As for "Installing Democracy in the Middle East", like I said above, this is an empty slogan. Bush is filling it with one particular meaning, which seems to be "... by invading their countries and overthrowing the governments", which sounds very similar to "... by Getting Those Arabs". Therefore, those people who voted for Bush _because_ their main issue is "Installing Democracy in the Middle East" would be voting for "Getting Those Arabs".