But psychx - what Bakerstreet and I object to is this myth that the left is somehow more enlightened. There's no evidence whatsoever to support that Bush voters are less informed than those who oppose him. If anything, the evidence shows that his opponents are less informed on the issues (as a broad generalism).
When I look around the political discussions, not just on JU but elsewhere, I see the same thing: Claims of intellectual superiority by the left without backing it up with any evidence. It's intellectualism by proclamation. I'll see some emotionally pleasing claim made by a liberal and then the conservative slogging it through with actual data with their own analsysis on that data. By contrast, liberals almost always rely on the analysis of others.
In my experience, and I've been debating politics on-line for a long time and in 4 days a political strategy game based on real world politics will be on the shelves throughout North America, left-wing "research" is very superficial. Research to the typical on-line liberal debater means going to some left-wing website and pulling a convenient article or quote and pasting it. The conservative debate will tend to look at the raw data and lead to their own conclusions. Now, that has a downside too, that's why the biggest on-line kooks in my experience are right wingers because they'll do their own analysis and come to some nutty conclusion. But as someone who does real research, I chaffe when I see someone who believes they're informed because they've latched onto the latest trendy analysis coming from "respected" left wingers.
In the context of this thread, the left gives us people like Michael Moore who looks at the data and churns out analysis so tilted that it's essentially propaganda. And we've had it fed to us now for months. I still see liberals referring to Bush as "George aWol Bush" on-line even though that story's been pretty thoroughly discredited. And we have to put up with stuff from MoveOn.org which gets guys like Wil Ferrel to reprise their SNL rolls to slam on Bush for commercials. And yet these guys cry foul when regular guys who served with Kerry call him out on some of his over-reaching war claims?
Is it really that much of a stretch to consider, just for a moment, that a guy who served in Vietnam for FOUR months may not have actually done that much? That it might be a bit much to base a Presidential campaign so heavily on those 4 months? George McGovern was a war hero btw. One who was in combat far longer than 4 months. Most people don't even know he was in the military. Yet the left freaks out that conservatives are finally starting to look into Kerry's war record.
The left is also far far more likely to start crying "personal attack" yet be completely oblivious to their own words. How exactly is it a personal attack to describe your words as showing ignorance? I didn't call you any names. I didn't attack you. I just believe (correctly I think) that you are not terribly well informed on these issues.
What other conclusion can someone take from your own words when you imply, essentially, that only conservatives and Republicans (who you apparently assume are some fringe minority since you use them as exceptions to your "Everyone" classification) support Bush? And then you later say well, most people support Bush but only because THEY are ignorant? (ignorance, btw, isn't a personal attack, it is a state of being uninformed, lacking "research" you might say).
Which does fit in: You guys on the left need a much thicker skin. Democrats have been dishing out the sewage and FUD about Bush and conservative views for a long while now and we've sucked it up and respected your freedom of speech. You don't see Bush threatening to sue Michael Moore or his distributors do you? Yet Kerry is talking about sueing these swift boat guys. Sad.
