'S factor' still relevant in election (Conservatives are stupid)

Seattle PI ^ | 1/17/05 | NEAL STARKMAN

[pissant]

I think he's onto something. He wrote this piece and proved what a blithering idiot he (effeminate, elitist liberal) really is.

[alkaloid2]

I love how liberals make themselves look elitist all the time.

Funny how almost all successful companies are started and owned by us simple-minded, "S Factor-ized" conservatives, isn't it?

tSG

[ash-housewares]

I always had thought the original piece was parody... Turns out it was like much conventional lib writing and merely indistinguishable from parody

[martin_fierro]

Oh, right. Conservatives are stupid.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I have read that liberals (the godless, self-worshipping, Christian haters) had determined that BUSH is the anti-Christ and that the Christians who voted for him just can't see it. Think about the irony of that for a minute.

[CauseEverything]

Well I think anyone who quotes Voltaire authoritatively is stupid. There's a big difference between being intelligent and being 'smart,' and Voltaire is the patron saint of all those who, for whatever reason, can't see it.

[A_perfect_lady]

Saddam didn't have WMD, eh? Hm. Wonder what killed all those Kurds. Second hand smoke, I guess.

[crazyhorse691]

I would have to say that the writer of this piece has spent too much time arguing with his mirror and not enough time with mammals. It is kinda a juvenile approach to life(something must be wrong with all those people who don't think as I do).

[JohnnyZ]

We have to do a lot of reframing, we have to apply stricter standards of truth and accuracy to mass media,

Holy non sequitor Batman! The reason the media doesn't have standards of truth and accuracy is that they're always trying to 'reframe' things to convince us they're right!

[pissant]

This must be Algore writing under a pseudonym.

[Slings and Arrows]

Well I think anyone who quotes Voltaire authoritatively is stupid. There's a big difference between being intelligent and being 'smart,' and Voltaire is the patron saint of all those who, for whatever reason, can't see it.

I thought it was this guy.

[Junior_G]

Wow. He spent time writing that entire article when he could have just written "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!"

[Still Thinking]

So if I have this right, his political calculus goes something like this:

Liberals = thinking man's party.
Conservatives = vote their feelings, whether they make policy sense or not.

Uh huh. He has a real firm grasp on reality. < /sarcasm >

[Pete98]

"Dumbing down" our arguments is not the answer. We have to slide horizontally into another universe and try to figure out a different way to communicate."


In other words, we need to learn how to lie to these dumb hicks better.

[Taliesan]

That's right, Neal. Conservatives live in the domain of feelings, liberals are analytical and rational. And nobody ever voted for Bill Clinton because he gazed into their eyes.

Bridge, meet your new owner.

[stubernx98]

He and others like him at the PI are the reason I canceled my subscription to to the PI over 10 years ago, never to subscribe again.

[Kerfuffle]

"Can you argue facts or logic with people who still believe that Bush has made us safer?"

Not unless you like to lose.

[Bahbah]

people who believe that handshakes -- or smiles, or haircuts or wives' offhand comments -- trump policies

Let me think. Who was it who said "we have better hair?" Dick Cheney?

[marron]

: Can you argue facts or logic with people who still believe that Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11?

Can you argue facts or logic with people who have refused to look with a clear eye at the connections between all of the various terror movements, and Baghdad, and Tehran, and Damascus?

Bush determined to drain the swamp. If someone disagrees with the precise tactics required to drain that swamp, we have something to talk about. If someone wants to deny that the swamp exists, or if someone wants to ignore the powers and people who have an interest in protecting the swamp, there really isn't much to talk about.

[DPMD]

As liberals have been saying since 2000, they just didn't have the chance to "get their true message out." This, more than anything is what this author means by "reframing" the argument. How many times must a basic argument have to be reframed before the results justify the true meaning? Oh, about as many times as votes have to be recounted until the liberals finally "discover" enough to pull ahead by one vote. The problem for this doofus is that they DID get their message out. Unfortunately for them, the message was heard loud and clear. And shoved back down their stupid, liberal, dense, endlessly reframed throats. But I hope they keep trying to reframe. See Webster's "reframe:" Same baloney, different wrapping.