Thank you for all being a part of the democratic process. If you got out and voted, that's great. We all need to be heard, we all make a difference
( Read more... )
You didn't need to withhold the name. I've no shame in what I wrote.
For the record, I'm a midwesterner, born and raised for 28 years, and voted absentee ballot in my home state of Wisconsin. I know these 'values' you speak of and exercise them in my own life on a daily basis and they run rampant throughout my family and friends as well. Your 'values' argument based solely on geographic location is unfortunately rather ignorant. Values are not geo-specific.
I simply do not understand Americans anymore. I was completely blindsided by the 'reality' of what the people actually favoured. That was at the heart of my commentary: everywhere I turn, everyone I come into contact with, all of it is critical of Bush's policies both domestic and foreign. And then he wins the popular vote?
Anyway, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Much like I have the right to say it, you have the right not to read it. If I want to vent out of frustration, that is MY right and MY forum to do so. I was expressing extreme fury, disappointment, frustration, and apprehension at the outcome of what I thought would be a very different scenario on Election Day. Differing opinions are what used to make this country great; I refuse to kowtow to the encroaching Big Brother-like tendencies that say if you disagree with anything our government is doing or criticize it in any way, we'll cart you off for some reconditioning. It's my right and my duty to criticize my government -- that is what our country was founded upon.
When we have a government that is fractious and not bipartisan (a Republican Congress and a Republican White House makes me wonder where the checks and balances come into play) and are facing the possibility of an ultra-conservative Supreme Court, you're goddamned right I'm going to be critical and apprehensive as hell. President Bush has made some decisions in his tenure that scare the hell out of me (have you read the text of the USA PATRIOT Act? Or USA PATRIOT II?), and as someone who is mindful of civil libertarian issues, I'm definitely going to cry foul if I sense something infringing upon civil liberties at the hands of government.
It is extraordinarily disappointing to read posts from W supporters who are of the narrowminded, ignorant mentality that espouses the philosophy that if foreign nations offer the least bit of criticism about out governmental policies, it's a-ok to go ahead and embrace that ethnocentrism of America Is #1! USA! USA! USA! All Other Countries Can Go To Hell!. Since when did we, in our extreme infancy as a nation by comparison, become the ubiquitous end-all be-all of That Which Is Right? How extremely egotistical a sentiment, and I see it all the time, what with the stupid "Freedom Fries" crap that was floating around and the anti-French sentiments the minute the French criticized Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. When you attempt to stifle criticism in this fashion, you are walking a very dangerous line, cutting off debate in its most important form. Look at how much time the discussion of Israel got in the 4 hours of presidential debates -- 3 minutes total. The children of the 60s must be going nuts over the subliminal encouraged censorship of self that is permeating this nation. And let's not even get into the whole alienating-the-entire-Muslim-population issue that's threatening to explode.
That's part of why I wrote what I wrote. I am sorry you took it so personally, but my perception is that we are to learn from history lest we are doomed to repeat it, and I don't see us learning anything from what's been going on for the last four years. I see us sinking further and further into an ultra-conservative nation with horseblinders on to the rest of the world and what they think, not giving a crap about anything outside of our borders unless it affects our pocketbooks. I welcome your comments on this if you choose to discuss it.
his money is in Sweden. Duh. Stop buying into Osama. Don't you think the release date of the tape to be a bit peculiar? Maybe we should just apologize to Osama and take all the blame for 9/11?
His money has never been an issue. Money is not an issue for Al Qaeda. Stop buying into the media bullshit.
Bin Laden wanted Bush to remain the president; it was in his own best interests. He's seen what four years of Bush can do, and can predict what four more years would do. He doesn't know what four years of Kerry would have done, and didn't want to find out. Keeping the status quo as far as American leadership was concerned is of great importance to the Al Qaeda regime.
Why would he invest his money in a country he describes as the most free in the world, if he hates freedom? His money being there generates interest and other economic benefits for the bank and the economy as a whole.
ignorant, narrowminded, egotistical This describes me and those that voted for Bush?
Put a better candidate than Kerry out there and we'll talk. The election was closer than it should have been in all actuality. I don't really know where you're from, but around here, there was no doubt that Bush was getting the vote, and my friends up in Ohio and Florida knew he was getting the vote there. So I guess all I can tell you is that maybe you need to diversify?
What rights have you lost from the Patriot Act? Which one? Please tell me, because everyone acts like it affects them everyday and if basically is helping keep another 9/11 from happening. Alienating the muslim population? The muslims I know don't approve of radical fundamentalism, that's what we're fighting. You know, the guys that are so cowardly that they wear masks and cut off people's heads? Maybe you should watch some of the videos of these atrocities and you'll change your mind.
You know, I respect and believe that you have the right to express your opinion, as do I. You don't even have me listed on your list anymore, and it doesn't break my heart. I took you off mine as well. You see, I know a lot of democrats. My gf is a democrat as well as a couple of my best friends and business associates. I find my interaction with them much more arousing than your ranting and bitching and moaning on your livejournal. We can at least discuss issues without calling each other names.
As far as history repeating itself, 8 years of Clinton brought on 9/11, don't you get it? Our laziness regarding international intelligence cost us. People don't want that repeated, point blank, and that was a big issue. "I voted
It appears that I need to make some clarifications because you decided to take some of my comments extremely personally when they were not intended to be taken as such.
First of all, I apologize if my taking you off my friends list hurt your feelings, because it really seems like it did as you mention it several times. I removed you quite some time ago because you had ceased posting and I was cleaning house. Plus, we didn't have all that much in common, so I figured it made sense. I didn't imagine you would even notice, let alone be hurt by such an action. I'm sorry you took it that way.
Next, let me start off my response with the following:
ignorant, narrowminded, egotistical This describes me and those that voted for Bush?
1. Ignorant reference: I clearly stated that your argument about values being geo-specific was ignorant. You are not your argument. An argument can be ignorant while the person is highly educated. I understand the difference and was careful to make that distinction in my comment, but unfortunately you took it personally anyway. I never said all Bush supporters favor this argument, so that part of your comment is invalid as well.
2. Narrowminded/egotistical reference: I stated that it is upsetting to read posts from W supporters who espouse the ethnocentrism of America being the supreme nation on earth and none of the other nations' opinions matter a whit. That is narrowminded and extremely egotistical thinking. I was not referencing any posts that you have put forth, because frankly, I didn't remember reading a lot of your posts on the subject, because as I stated previously, you have not been on my friends list for some time now. There are plenty of other W supporters out there in LiveJournalLand, and this mentality is certainly not limited to LiveJournal as I have seen it in person, read it in papers, heard it on television, and so on and so forth. It's profoundly saddening to me because I think America needs to appreciate the value of the other nations on this planet, to understand that it is not the ruler and all other nations its followers, that English should not be spoken in every household on earth and democracy doesn't work for everyone. For a young nation like ourselves to claim that we know the best way to run a country -- that is presuming complete idiocy of all other nations currently in existence who have been around much longer than we have. What kind of a mentality is that? And to attempt to stifle honest-to-god discourse on a subject as important as war, as when France expressed a contrasting opinion and all of a sudden we're all eating goddamned Freedom Fries because god forbid we question the judgment of our leaders? That isn't the America the Founding Fathers envisioned at ALL. Again, I never said "all W supporters feel this way" and I don't appreciate you generalizing my argument when I never intended a generalization in the first place.
Put a better candidate than Kerry out there and we'll talk.
You're exactly right -- John Kerry was not the strongest candidate the Democrats could have nominated. Nobody's arguing that point. Perhaps I just thought that the populace was a bit more soured on the current administration than they apparently were. Long have we had elections where it comes down to voting AGAINST someone rather than voting FOR someone, but with the popular vote in mind, it's disturbing for me to realize that so many voted FOR Bush.
I don't really know where you're from, but around here, there was no doubt that Bush was getting the vote, and my friends up in Ohio and Florida knew he was getting the vote there. So I guess all I can tell you is that maybe you need to diversify?
Diversify, hmm. Interesting comment. My current location (New York City) certainly colours my perspective on what Middle America is feeling, but I am in constant communication with my parents back home in Milwaukee, and my friends back home in Minneapolis, and visiting both areas as frequently as possible, not to mention keeping up with the papers in both areas on a semi-regular basis, all give me an idea of what the sentiment is. And yes, both states went to Kerry, but Wisconsin in particular was battleground from the get-go. My friends from Kansas, Ohio, and Iowa all do the same and the general impression I had was that Bush was not as favoured as he turned out to be on Tuesday night. My friend in Georgia is in the military so her perspective was coloured a bit by that fact; I have not been keeping in as good of communication with my family in Florida as I should have, so my opinion on the mood down there is invalid. Shall I attempt to make friends in every single state and follow 50 different newspapers a day in order to formulate an opinion on what I feel the mood is like in the country? How much do I need to 'diversify' beyond what I've already done to be equipped to state my opinion?
What rights have you lost from the Patriot Act?
The USA PATRIOT Act... well, I'm currently working on a research project about USA PATRIOT for my Policy Analysis class and will happily forward you a copy of the finished project if you'd like, but no way am I going to be able to cover the breadth of your general question in the space allotted herein. Concisely put: do I have to be personally and directly affected by a piece of legislation in order to properly appreciate the implications it possesses? To judge each piece of legislation by whether or not it has directly and personally affected me would be extremely self-centered and I must realize that there are 293,382,953 currently people living in this country, and that legislation is usually drafted to affect at least a portion of that population, if not the entire population (as is the case with federal legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act). My background is in sociology, not psychology -- I've long been conditioned to consider the implications of things on a grander scale than just a personal scale.
and if basically is helping keep another 9/11 from happening.
I'm not exactly sure what you meant by this, but I will estimate that you think the USA PATRIOT Act will prevent another 9/11 from happening. I hate to burst your bubble, but 9/11 is widely perceived by the intelligence community to be just the beginning of our inauguration into the world of domestic terrorism. I'm not saying we'll experience 9/11 again; it would be impossible for us to experience 9/11 again as 9/11 was a watershed moment for the United States in terms of terrorism. However, major terrorist incidents will likely occur on our soil, USA PATRIOT or no USA PATRIOT. Only the hard work of our intelligence community is preventing attacks from happening right this minute; I attended a seminar last night given by two CIA officials who explicitly stated that through their investigations and legwork, they are preventing attacks from happening right now. They did not say that USA PATRIOT was assisting them in these ends, however. I will bring that up with one of them next semester as I am registered for his Espionage in America course and it will undoubtedly be an issue.
Alienating the muslim population? The muslims I know don't approve of radical fundamentalism, that's what we're fighting. You know, the guys that are so cowardly that they wear masks and cut off people's heads? Maybe you should watch some of the videos of these atrocities and you'll change your mind.
The Muslims I know don't approve of radical fundamentalism either. We're "fighting" terrorism, but through our actions in attempting to do so, we are alienating Muslim populations in the process. You remember the photos that came out of Abu Ghraib, don't you? Those prisoners were Muslim men and were purposely humiliated in order to demoralize not only them personally but their Iraqi brethren as well. And our military officials certainly understand the Muslim faith well enough to know exactly what to do to humiliate them by flagrantly violating their most sacred beliefs. The very fact that the atrocities at Abu Ghraib were revealed did so much to fragment relations with Muslim populations. And it goes to such a grander scale than what you purport; it is not just that we are "fighting radical fundamentalism" -- it can be perceived by other nations as Christianity attempting to proselytize and convert yet again. And as far as "the guys that are so cowardly that they wear masks" -- I hesitate to even say this because I know how you might twist it, but it's certainly not cowardliness that has them wearing masks. Hostage-takers wear masks to maintain an emotional distance from their captives, thus preventing the Stockholm Syndrome from occurring; this methodology also illustrates the perception that they wish to purport, which is that in wearing masks, they of course cannot be identified, and thus heightening the fear to not only the captives but the world that they could be anyone. A robber who wears pantyhose on his head to avoid identification is acting out of cowardliness; please don't underestimate the intelligence of these hostage-takers by lumping them into that group. It's so dangerous to underestimate people in that fashion. And for the record, I have seen several of these videos, and it does nothing to change my opinion -- that is pure sensationalism that you are buying into, and it is exactly what they want to achieve by releasing these videos in the first place. It's no accident.
My gf is a democrat as well as a couple of my best friends and business associates. I find my interaction with them much more arousing than your ranting and bitching and moaning on your livejournal. We can at least discuss issues without calling each other names.
I refer you to my explanation above about the 'ignorant/narrowminded/egostical' comment you raised. I'm glad you have been able to engage in some discourse with those who differ from your political perspective. And I'm sorry that you found my posts expressing my emotions about the campaigns and election so offensive and distasteful. Had I known this, I would have suggested you remove me from your friends list long ago. LiveJournal, for me, is an outlet for emotions, random thoughts, amusements, and opinions. If you expected it to be filled with purely objective intellectual discourse, I apologize; I save that for my classes, my workplace, and a few friends. I spend 10 hours a day intellectualizing with graduate students on the master's and Ph.D. levels and the last thing I necessarily want to do when I get home is turn my personal outlet into a forum for even more discourse. That's not why I started my LiveJournal and that's not what my LiveJournal will be.
Anyways, I don't feel like retyping it, and I don't really feel like talking with you anymore about this until you're over the election.
That is unfortunate; I enjoyed composing this and welcomed further discussion, but it appears you are not interested in pursuing an intellectual debate on this matter. Thanks for your response nonetheless.
For the record, I'm a midwesterner, born and raised for 28 years, and voted absentee ballot in my home state of Wisconsin. I know these 'values' you speak of and exercise them in my own life on a daily basis and they run rampant throughout my family and friends as well. Your 'values' argument based solely on geographic location is unfortunately rather ignorant. Values are not geo-specific.
I simply do not understand Americans anymore. I was completely blindsided by the 'reality' of what the people actually favoured. That was at the heart of my commentary: everywhere I turn, everyone I come into contact with, all of it is critical of Bush's policies both domestic and foreign. And then he wins the popular vote?
Anyway, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Much like I have the right to say it, you have the right not to read it. If I want to vent out of frustration, that is MY right and MY forum to do so. I was expressing extreme fury, disappointment, frustration, and apprehension at the outcome of what I thought would be a very different scenario on Election Day. Differing opinions are what used to make this country great; I refuse to kowtow to the encroaching Big Brother-like tendencies that say if you disagree with anything our government is doing or criticize it in any way, we'll cart you off for some reconditioning. It's my right and my duty to criticize my government -- that is what our country was founded upon.
When we have a government that is fractious and not bipartisan (a Republican Congress and a Republican White House makes me wonder where the checks and balances come into play) and are facing the possibility of an ultra-conservative Supreme Court, you're goddamned right I'm going to be critical and apprehensive as hell. President Bush has made some decisions in his tenure that scare the hell out of me (have you read the text of the USA PATRIOT Act? Or USA PATRIOT II?), and as someone who is mindful of civil libertarian issues, I'm definitely going to cry foul if I sense something infringing upon civil liberties at the hands of government.
It is extraordinarily disappointing to read posts from W supporters who are of the narrowminded, ignorant mentality that espouses the philosophy that if foreign nations offer the least bit of criticism about out governmental policies, it's a-ok to go ahead and embrace that ethnocentrism of America Is #1! USA! USA! USA! All Other Countries Can Go To Hell!. Since when did we, in our extreme infancy as a nation by comparison, become the ubiquitous end-all be-all of That Which Is Right? How extremely egotistical a sentiment, and I see it all the time, what with the stupid "Freedom Fries" crap that was floating around and the anti-French sentiments the minute the French criticized Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. When you attempt to stifle criticism in this fashion, you are walking a very dangerous line, cutting off debate in its most important form. Look at how much time the discussion of Israel got in the 4 hours of presidential debates -- 3 minutes total. The children of the 60s must be going nuts over the subliminal encouraged censorship of self that is permeating this nation. And let's not even get into the whole alienating-the-entire-Muslim-population issue that's threatening to explode.
That's part of why I wrote what I wrote. I am sorry you took it so personally, but my perception is that we are to learn from history lest we are doomed to repeat it, and I don't see us learning anything from what's been going on for the last four years. I see us sinking further and further into an ultra-conservative nation with horseblinders on to the rest of the world and what they think, not giving a crap about anything outside of our borders unless it affects our pocketbooks. I welcome your comments on this if you choose to discuss it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I should have put my tags on my comment.
Reply
Don't you think the release date of the tape to be a bit peculiar? Maybe we should just apologize to Osama and take all the blame for 9/11?
Reply
Bin Laden wanted Bush to remain the president; it was in his own best interests. He's seen what four years of Bush can do, and can predict what four more years would do. He doesn't know what four years of Kerry would have done, and didn't want to find out. Keeping the status quo as far as American leadership was concerned is of great importance to the Al Qaeda regime.
Reply
Reply
This describes me and those that voted for Bush?
Put a better candidate than Kerry out there and we'll talk. The election was closer than it should have been in all actuality. I don't really know where you're from, but around here, there was no doubt that Bush was getting the vote, and my friends up in Ohio and Florida knew he was getting the vote there. So I guess all I can tell you is that maybe you need to diversify?
What rights have you lost from the Patriot Act? Which one? Please tell me, because everyone acts like it affects them everyday and if basically is helping keep another 9/11 from happening.
Alienating the muslim population? The muslims I know don't approve of radical fundamentalism, that's what we're fighting. You know, the guys that are so cowardly that they wear masks and cut off people's heads? Maybe you should watch some of the videos of these atrocities and you'll change your mind.
You know, I respect and believe that you have the right to express your opinion, as do I. You don't even have me listed on your list anymore, and it doesn't break my heart. I took you off mine as well. You see, I know a lot of democrats. My gf is a democrat as well as a couple of my best friends and business associates. I find my interaction with them much more arousing than your ranting and bitching and moaning on your livejournal. We can at least discuss issues without calling each other names.
As far as history repeating itself, 8 years of Clinton brought on 9/11, don't you get it? Our laziness regarding international intelligence cost us. People don't want that repeated, point blank, and that was a big issue. "I voted
Reply
First of all, I apologize if my taking you off my friends list hurt your feelings, because it really seems like it did as you mention it several times. I removed you quite some time ago because you had ceased posting and I was cleaning house. Plus, we didn't have all that much in common, so I figured it made sense. I didn't imagine you would even notice, let alone be hurt by such an action. I'm sorry you took it that way.
Next, let me start off my response with the following:
ignorant, narrowminded, egotistical
This describes me and those that voted for Bush?
1. Ignorant reference: I clearly stated that your argument about values being geo-specific was ignorant. You are not your argument. An argument can be ignorant while the person is highly educated. I understand the difference and was careful to make that distinction in my comment, but unfortunately you took it personally anyway. I never said all Bush supporters favor this argument, so that part of your comment is invalid as well.
2. Narrowminded/egotistical reference: I stated that it is upsetting to read posts from W supporters who espouse the ethnocentrism of America being the supreme nation on earth and none of the other nations' opinions matter a whit. That is narrowminded and extremely egotistical thinking. I was not referencing any posts that you have put forth, because frankly, I didn't remember reading a lot of your posts on the subject, because as I stated previously, you have not been on my friends list for some time now. There are plenty of other W supporters out there in LiveJournalLand, and this mentality is certainly not limited to LiveJournal as I have seen it in person, read it in papers, heard it on television, and so on and so forth. It's profoundly saddening to me because I think America needs to appreciate the value of the other nations on this planet, to understand that it is not the ruler and all other nations its followers, that English should not be spoken in every household on earth and democracy doesn't work for everyone. For a young nation like ourselves to claim that we know the best way to run a country -- that is presuming complete idiocy of all other nations currently in existence who have been around much longer than we have. What kind of a mentality is that? And to attempt to stifle honest-to-god discourse on a subject as important as war, as when France expressed a contrasting opinion and all of a sudden we're all eating goddamned Freedom Fries because god forbid we question the judgment of our leaders? That isn't the America the Founding Fathers envisioned at ALL. Again, I never said "all W supporters feel this way" and I don't appreciate you generalizing my argument when I never intended a generalization in the first place.
Put a better candidate than Kerry out there and we'll talk.
You're exactly right -- John Kerry was not the strongest candidate the Democrats could have nominated. Nobody's arguing that point. Perhaps I just thought that the populace was a bit more soured on the current administration than they apparently were. Long have we had elections where it comes down to voting AGAINST someone rather than voting FOR someone, but with the popular vote in mind, it's disturbing for me to realize that so many voted FOR Bush.
(continued)
Reply
Diversify, hmm. Interesting comment. My current location (New York City) certainly colours my perspective on what Middle America is feeling, but I am in constant communication with my parents back home in Milwaukee, and my friends back home in Minneapolis, and visiting both areas as frequently as possible, not to mention keeping up with the papers in both areas on a semi-regular basis, all give me an idea of what the sentiment is. And yes, both states went to Kerry, but Wisconsin in particular was battleground from the get-go. My friends from Kansas, Ohio, and Iowa all do the same and the general impression I had was that Bush was not as favoured as he turned out to be on Tuesday night. My friend in Georgia is in the military so her perspective was coloured a bit by that fact; I have not been keeping in as good of communication with my family in Florida as I should have, so my opinion on the mood down there is invalid. Shall I attempt to make friends in every single state and follow 50 different newspapers a day in order to formulate an opinion on what I feel the mood is like in the country? How much do I need to 'diversify' beyond what I've already done to be equipped to state my opinion?
What rights have you lost from the Patriot Act?
The USA PATRIOT Act... well, I'm currently working on a research project about USA PATRIOT for my Policy Analysis class and will happily forward you a copy of the finished project if you'd like, but no way am I going to be able to cover the breadth of your general question in the space allotted herein. Concisely put: do I have to be personally and directly affected by a piece of legislation in order to properly appreciate the implications it possesses? To judge each piece of legislation by whether or not it has directly and personally affected me would be extremely self-centered and I must realize that there are 293,382,953 currently people living in this country, and that legislation is usually drafted to affect at least a portion of that population, if not the entire population (as is the case with federal legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act). My background is in sociology, not psychology -- I've long been conditioned to consider the implications of things on a grander scale than just a personal scale.
and if basically is helping keep another 9/11 from happening.
I'm not exactly sure what you meant by this, but I will estimate that you think the USA PATRIOT Act will prevent another 9/11 from happening. I hate to burst your bubble, but 9/11 is widely perceived by the intelligence community to be just the beginning of our inauguration into the world of domestic terrorism. I'm not saying we'll experience 9/11 again; it would be impossible for us to experience 9/11 again as 9/11 was a watershed moment for the United States in terms of terrorism. However, major terrorist incidents will likely occur on our soil, USA PATRIOT or no USA PATRIOT. Only the hard work of our intelligence community is preventing attacks from happening right this minute; I attended a seminar last night given by two CIA officials who explicitly stated that through their investigations and legwork, they are preventing attacks from happening right now. They did not say that USA PATRIOT was assisting them in these ends, however. I will bring that up with one of them next semester as I am registered for his Espionage in America course and it will undoubtedly be an issue.
(continued)
Reply
The Muslims I know don't approve of radical fundamentalism either. We're "fighting" terrorism, but through our actions in attempting to do so, we are alienating Muslim populations in the process. You remember the photos that came out of Abu Ghraib, don't you? Those prisoners were Muslim men and were purposely humiliated in order to demoralize not only them personally but their Iraqi brethren as well. And our military officials certainly understand the Muslim faith well enough to know exactly what to do to humiliate them by flagrantly violating their most sacred beliefs. The very fact that the atrocities at Abu Ghraib were revealed did so much to fragment relations with Muslim populations. And it goes to such a grander scale than what you purport; it is not just that we are "fighting radical fundamentalism" -- it can be perceived by other nations as Christianity attempting to proselytize and convert yet again. And as far as "the guys that are so cowardly that they wear masks" -- I hesitate to even say this because I know how you might twist it, but it's certainly not cowardliness that has them wearing masks. Hostage-takers wear masks to maintain an emotional distance from their captives, thus preventing the Stockholm Syndrome from occurring; this methodology also illustrates the perception that they wish to purport, which is that in wearing masks, they of course cannot be identified, and thus heightening the fear to not only the captives but the world that they could be anyone. A robber who wears pantyhose on his head to avoid identification is acting out of cowardliness; please don't underestimate the intelligence of these hostage-takers by lumping them into that group. It's so dangerous to underestimate people in that fashion. And for the record, I have seen several of these videos, and it does nothing to change my opinion -- that is pure sensationalism that you are buying into, and it is exactly what they want to achieve by releasing these videos in the first place. It's no accident.
My gf is a democrat as well as a couple of my best friends and business associates. I find my interaction with them much more arousing than your ranting and bitching and moaning on your livejournal. We can at least discuss issues without calling each other names.
I refer you to my explanation above about the 'ignorant/narrowminded/egostical' comment you raised. I'm glad you have been able to engage in some discourse with those who differ from your political perspective. And I'm sorry that you found my posts expressing my emotions about the campaigns and election so offensive and distasteful. Had I known this, I would have suggested you remove me from your friends list long ago. LiveJournal, for me, is an outlet for emotions, random thoughts, amusements, and opinions. If you expected it to be filled with purely objective intellectual discourse, I apologize; I save that for my classes, my workplace, and a few friends. I spend 10 hours a day intellectualizing with graduate students on the master's and Ph.D. levels and the last thing I necessarily want to do when I get home is turn my personal outlet into a forum for even more discourse. That's not why I started my LiveJournal and that's not what my LiveJournal will be.
Anyways, I don't feel like retyping it, and I don't really feel like talking with you anymore about this until you're over the election.
That is unfortunate; I enjoyed composing this and welcomed further discussion, but it appears you are not interested in pursuing an intellectual debate on this matter. Thanks for your response nonetheless.
Reply
I just typed a response as long as yours and my browser shut down.
Anyways, I don't feel like retyping it, and I don't really feel like talking with you anymore about this until you're over the election.
We probably won't, however, as you're not on my list and I'm not on yours.
4 more years.
Reply
Oh wait.
Reply
You make me laugh man. Thanks.
Reply
Leave a comment