Chimpy Chompy on 4/6/2007 at 21:15
Well Fett, help us out here then and explain! What were people's reasons? Social, economic, security?
To throw in one perspective, I was talking to an american friend from Chicago, many of who's family and friends are doctors. They voted Bush because they all viewed John Edwards as a horrendous ambulance-chaser and a menace to their profession.
fett on 4/6/2007 at 21:53
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Well Fett, help us out here then and explain! What were people's reasons? Social, economic, security?
To throw in one perspective, I was talking to an american friend from Chicago, many of who's family and friends are doctors. They voted Bush because they all viewed John Edwards as a horrendous ambulance-chaser and a menace to their profession.
It's not rocket science guys - Chimpy just gave an example of one of the MANY reasons people voted the way they did. I'm not justifying a vote for Bush - I'm responding to Swiss Merc's assertion that 51% of Americans voted for Bush because they have an "LOLterism" mentality. We have a fucked up two party system that makes it extremely complicated to vote for someone with whom you agree 100% on everything, not to mention the fact that you have no idea how that individual will behave once in office. Many Democrats and liberals (which are not synonymous btw) were disappointed with Clinton 4-5 years in as well. Most of the time we end up voting *against* the other guy, or voting for a no-chance dark horse because it's the only option.
But yes, perceived social and economic security (which obviously didn't happen), perceived 'moral' issues such as abortion, gay rights, etc. to which GASP some conservative people have intelligent objections whether you agree with them or not (I'm sure this comment will warrant 3 pages of wankery that I'm pretty sure I won't respond to) - whether or not Bush has intelligent opinions on those subjects is pretty obvious. But when Swiss puts everyone who voted for Bush in the conspiracy nut camp (LOLterrism), or Pyrian places them in the Ralph Reed/Jerry Falwell camp (the earth is 7,000 years old), it's myopic at best and willfully ignorant at worst.
Aerothorn on 4/6/2007 at 23:14
YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE FETT
Kolya on 5/6/2007 at 00:35
Quote Posted by fett
Americans are [...] dumbfuck Europeans [...]
I'm glad to see at least one person here doesn't give in so easily to sweeping generalisations.
Jason Moyer on 5/6/2007 at 01:57
Quote Posted by fett
perceived 'moral' issues such as abortion, gay rights, etc. to which GASP some conservative people have intelligent objections whether you agree with them or not (I'm sure this comment will warrant 3 pages of wankery that I'm pretty sure I won't respond to)
No need to start a wankfest, but I'd be interested in a link to an intelligent objection to gay rights.
As a conservative, I find the need of both parties to project their personal moral standards on everyone else to be highly offensive. I would expect an intelligent person to make whatever moral choices they feel are right without expecting everyone else to feel the same way.
fett on 5/6/2007 at 02:34
Quote Posted by Koyla
I'm glad to see at least one person here doesn't give in so easily to sweeping generalisations.
Koyla - Yeah I obviously meant that all Europeans are dumbfucks, not specifically ones that make sweeping generalizations about Americans. We're proud of you for scanning the post to make a witty self-righteous observation. And it's spelled with a 'z' not an 's'. :thumb:
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
No need to start a wankfest, but I'd be interested in a link to an intelligent objection to gay rights.
As a conservative, I find the need of both parties to project their personal moral standards on everyone else to be highly offensive. I would expect an intelligent person to make whatever moral choices they feel are right without expecting everyone else to feel the same way.
They feel that voting for someone who is anti-gay rights IS a moral choice and they obviously wouldn't feel the need to vote if they expected everyone else to feel the same way. I'm not saying they're *good* reasons, or even socially productive reasons, but you will find that some conservatives actually do think through why they vote and believe the way that they do, beyond 'LOLterrism'. That's THE ONLY point I'm trying to make because I resent the implication that half of the U.S. voting population are so stupid as to believe the earth is flat or that there really are WMD's in Iraq (covered up by the media of course :rolleyes:). Is it such a difficult concept that people in general, and Americans specifically, are a little more complex than that when it comes to their beliefs about leaders, war, and national security?
Kolya on 5/6/2007 at 03:03
I didn't mean your generalisation (BE) about Europeans, as there wasn't any, but about Americans who are repeatedly pissed off etc. Also it's spelled Kolya. Thanks. :thumb:
fett on 5/6/2007 at 03:39
Quote Posted by Kolya
I didn't mean your generalisation (BE) about Europeans, as there wasn't any, but about Americans who are repeatedly pissed off etc. Also it's spelled Kolya. Thanks. :thumb:
Ah! Gotcha - sorry 'bout that. Turns out, it really was a witty observation then... :p
aguywhoplaysthief on 5/6/2007 at 03:40
Back to the original topic, one thing that really stuck out at me was this:
Quote:
Many other countries have developed subtle, sometimes highly ritualistic, ways of informing other people of unpleasant information. Americans, however, have always preferred the first approach. They are likely to be completely honest in delivering their negative evaluations. If you come from a society that uses the indirect manner of conveying bad news or uncomplimentary evaluations, you will be shocked at Americans' bluntness.
If you come from a country where saving face is important, be assured that Americans are not trying to make you lose face with their directness. It is important to realize that an American would not, in such case, lose face. The burden of adjustment, in all cases while you are in this country, will be on you. There is no way to soften the blow of such directness and openness if you are not used to it except to tell you that the rules have changed while you are here. Indeed, Americans are trying to urge their fellow countrymen to become even more open and direct. The large number of "assertiveness" training courses that appeared in the United States in the late 1970s reflects such a commitment.
Now, and this is an honest question - what are some examples of "indirect" and "subtle, sometimes highly ritualistic, ways of informing other people of unpleasant information"?
I can't think of, at the moment, any other way of making a "negative evaluation" of someone in a social setting except by directly telling them. Mark it on a their calendar?
Ko0K on 5/6/2007 at 05:21
Americans are citizens of the Unites States who are obligated to abide by the applicable codes, covenants, and restrictions of the US, and are afforded liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution. I'm sure there are many ways to define and explain anything, be it Americans or mysterious poo in the middle of your living room, but how we perceive it is ultimately affected by our personal biases, and reinforced by peer opinions. Personally I thought that essay was a bunch of BS, but that's simply my opinion of it.
