I **really** don't give a shit .......

[Stinky The Clown]

I don't give a shit that he's a Mormon.

I don't give a shit how big the new house is.

I don't give a shit if her husband got a blow job .... or if he gets another one tomorrow from a woman not his wife.

I don't give a shit if he smokes. Or if his name sounds vaguely ..... something ...

I don't give a shit if he dressed in drag or marched in a gay pride parade.

For each one of them, there are things they say, do, or have said, or have done that I DO give a shit about. But things from the above list are just stupid and anyone who grouses about them is, in my personal opinion, as stupid and small as the non-issue they choose to use to slur the candidates.

[Monkeyman]

1. So What you are saying to be clear you don't give a shit Lol

[tavalon]

2. If I could recommend it twice, I would

I hate that the average public is told that these are the things that matter. These are the things that really, really don't fucking matter! It's like the shell game. Look at the unimportant stuff so you won't notice were fucking you over.

[Dr.Phool]

11. I got it for ya.

#10

[AtomicKitten]

3. But would would the tee-vee talking heads have to quack about?

[tavalon]

5. I wish the TV heads would just go into acting and give up pretending to be journalists

It would just be so much more in integrity. Or they could go into prostitution. They have experience.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. They're too ugly for hollywood

[Auntie Bush]

4. Well spoken...er...at least truthful and sensible! Good for you!

Now get back in bed and listen to some soothing music and eat your veggies.

[tavalon]

6. Let's send this fine missive to the Greatest page please

This is some of the best of the best.

[Bjornsdotter]

7. Same here

.....really, really don't care.

Cheers

[More Than A Feeling]

8. Except for the house thing, all those things are RW hating points

(hating points are what RWingers have when they run out of talking points.)

[saracat]

14. The "house thing' is also anRW hating point!

[mnhtnbb]

30. Yes. That was a right wing group in NC that brought it to everyone's attention.

[Porcupine]

33. because enviros vote Dem. even when we shit on them.

Kind of like the poor and certain minorities.

[marions ghost]

39. I have heard

people who are the polar opposite of rightwingers make comments on the extravagance and lack of vision of the Edwards house. It's a fair topic IMO. Obviously the rightwing can identify a liberal achilles heel so they will try to use it against us. Doesn't mean the point has no validity.

[tavalon]

9. Well done

This is where it should be.

[AtomicKitten]

10. kick cuz I give a shit

[Rebellious Republican]

12. Sounds good to me, I think your on to a good rant there. K&R

:toast:

[EVDebs]

13. I DO want to know "Did he/she swallow the Kool-Aid ?" know what I mean ? nt

[AshevilleGuy]

15. We do not give a shit, but many of the swing voters do.

Unfortunately everyone doesn't analyze elections the way we do; they vote for or against candidates for just such factors as you have listed above. We can ignore this is we wish but there might be a price to pay in November.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. You're correct, but that doesn't change the fact that to do so is stupid.

The underlying premise stands.

[AshevilleGuy]

18. Oh, certainly.

No doubt it's stupid. But this is the hand we are dealt, gotta deal with it. It won't change in my lifetime.

[marions ghost]

36. agreed

we have to pay attention to how the average voter is seeing things. The candidates are portrayed in the media as celebrities and their personal lives will be scrutinized, whether we like it or not. A president was impeached over a liaison held in this culture as improper, but hardly a high crime against the state. The impeachment of Clinton illustrates how much these things matter to people. All too many Americans lack the capacity to understand and assess a politician on any other level.

I understand the frustration about this but if WE don't pay attention to this stuff it doesn't change anything. We have to learn how to fight it and at least neutralize it. Can't just plug up our ears.

[ProSense]

16. Ah world gone mad, even

Gore is responding to smears:

Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics

The impressionable are out there!

[joshcryer]

19. Hear, hear!

That's what I'm talking about. I mean God.

Though I Edwards' house does bug me a bit, I don't see a reason to get into an argument about it (I've been staying very clear of those threads).

[smalll]

21. But AMERICA gives shits, that's the point -

the voters give mass quantities of shits about these things. YOU need to eat more fiber. The American President is a relatively unique thing: he (or she) is the head of government, sure, like a Prime Minister, for example, but he is also the Head of State - our elected monarch. And America is (still) a powerful and famous country. The President, in his constitutional monarch role, stands as a symbol for the nation. He is the chief of the tribe. And in those issues of symbolism and the meaning and mission of America, things like Good Hair and houses matter. Always have, always will. (For example, America likes to think of itself as a young and vigorous country. It still makes SOME sense to think of America that way. So ever since JFK, all our presidents have had to have a certain modicum of youth about them: they all had hair, and they were all relatively trim.)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. These matter only inasmuch as they affect electability.

Having red hair doesn't impair someone's ability to be president, but if enough people are prejudiced against redheads then it impairs their ability to be a presidential candidate.

In a democracy, even the most trivial and irrelevant property of a candidate becomes significant if enough people believe that it is, in all but the final election - if you're trying to choose between two candidates for a job, as opposed to a candidacy, you *can* safely ignore properties you deem to be irrelevant even if other people don't.

Which is not to say that things like those lifted above shouldn't be regarded as trivial.

[Tsiyu]

22. But, but, these are IMPORTANT THINGS!

How can you not give a shit about petty, insignificant factoids and rumours and non-issues?

I suppose next you'll be telling me that your main concerns are getting us out of the military quagmire in Iraq, restoring our Constitution, doing something about our pitiful national health care system and trying to fix our flat-busted economy?

ARE YOU INSANE, MAN?

Don't you realize that - as some of the insightful folks here have pointed out - that VOTERS care about these things?

:sarcasm:

The truth is, most Americans have arisen and smelled the coffee beans. Americans don't give a shit about this stuff either, and I don't give a F**K what some people on here say about wooing the voters with all the inane bullshit.

The Dems took back the House and Senate, no? This clearly shows that Americans want substantive change and real leadership and that they DON'T give a F**K what the talking heads spew.

Great post :kick: and R'd

[bagrman]

31. The only thing the Wage Slaves care about is "do I get to keep my stuff"

[Tsiyu]

35. I disagree

There are many who do care about this nation, but they have never understood how to get involved in politics and then there are many who are working tirelessly to make things right.

Why do we have DU, with all its members, if "wage slaves" don't care?

[bagrman]

54. When and where was the last protest you went to? and why didn't you go?

[MGD]

48. Not true, we also care about getting more stuff.

eom

[marions ghost]

38. is it really such an either/or argument?

Can't a voter be focused on Iraq, the economy, "restoring the constitution" (we shouldn't even have to be doing that if the govt hadn't been hijacked), the health care system etc. and STILL pay attention to the details about how the candidates are living their lives?

I would argue that the MORE people get into politics in general the MORE they will pay attention to the trivia to see if it helps them sort out the big picture in this complex world. It doesn't mean they are paying NO attention to the more serious issues.

[madmax]

23. Ditto

Hey!!! Sounds like you need to go shopping for some copper pots :P
Shhh, don't tell Sparkly. :evilgrin:

[leftofthedial]

24. whew!

I'm glad I wasn't around when you DID give a shit.

You're right. It's absurd enough that we're getting overkill on an election still nearly two years away, but the focus on personal issues is completely outrageous.

[jarnocan]

25. I **really** don't give a shit.. funny that's what I said this morning

about that bombing in Afghanistan, well I do a bit I guess, because some regular folks did get killed.
and maybe I should because I am sure the publicty will be used....? although it really is just one more indication of failure.

[toddaa]

26. K & F@$&ing R!!!

Any chance we could squeeze dead models and bald singers into this list?

[NoSheep]

27. Amen.

[ieoeja]

28. 100% n/t

[autorank]

29. I give a shit that you stay health so you can be cranky!!! n/t

[LittleClarkie]

32. Amen, right on, kick and recommend

simultaeously, and at the same time, too.

[The Count]

34. Been raving and ranting against that poll where they quantify prejudice myself

Seen lots of articles: They hate atheists even more than they hate gays! But they hate blacks less than they hate women! The whole thing is shameful to me!

[uberllama42]

37. I have to disagree about smoking -

I think smoking shows a serious lack of judgement. Anyone stupid enough to smoke should not be invested with the public trust.

[wiley]

40. Yes I do give a shit about Rudy Guiliani's failings and actions

and his connections with highly suspect individuals and actions. Individuals who grouse about these things you mention are merely mimicking the garbage they hear on the MSM. They are also just a small cross section of the morons that most Americans have become, mainly due to oppression by the hours they need to work just to keep from not surviving.

The Internet has really served to broadcast and amplify the incredible stupidity that passes for personality these days. Technology has just allowed others to become aware more quickly that everyone has an *hole, and there are some really big *holes who just never shut up and who somehow got into positioons of power in many religions. You know, Republicans who support the current administration, people who just "HATE" Hillary Clinton, Democratic idiots who believe a great President is one who would look good in a bathing suit, etc.

[marions ghost]

41. Questions

Do you give a shit that King George was propelled into office by a block of fundamentalist Christians?

Do you care that Duke Cunningham's house led to the fall of his whole House of Cards?

Do you care that Clinton's inability to understand the political ramifications of his extracurricular activities seriously jeopardized the Democrats' prospects and fed the rabid Rightwing vultures for a decade?

Do you care that a presidential candidate's wife wants him to stop smoking so much she encourages people to give him a hard time for it? Do we want such a good candidate not to try to beat addictions that may lead to serious health problems while serving the country?

Do you care that the present regime got into power on an anti-Gay agenda --while one raised an openly gay daughter and another marched in Pride Parades?

-----------------------------

The small things, the "non-issues" --often contain the seeds of big things.

[Stinky The Clown]

42. Feel better?

[marions ghost]

43. eh?

:shrug:

So mine is not a reasonable response to your series of things nobody should give a shit about?

I guess you don't give a shit about anyone who doesn't totally agree with you.

I just don't think having an interest in personal info about high level leaders of govt is the same thing as being bludgeoned by "Anna Nicole" --sorry to disagree with your premise. We're liberals right? We are allowed to differ from each other.

[wiley]

45. Not to take sides

but I see where you both are coming from. You are absolutely correct about the hypocrisy of the actions taken by these people and the fact that they damaged people's lives to ascend (or steal) power. They keep using "wedge" issues to try to divide and conquer, leaving us with the same end result. But the American electorate may actually be at the point where Bread and Butter issues, i.e. their survival, just might trump one issue fanaticism. Listen, this country still does not accept blood from individuals who have had same sex relationships, yet people die every day for lack of blood. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Blood is screened for all kinds of things. Paying health care providers shit and overworking them and cutting all their support structure will ensure that there will be more accidental infections of all kinds than would ever be transmitted by a one in a million chance that a gay man donated infected blood that was improperly screened, unprocessed, then given to someone else. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

It does feel good to speak out about it and try to do something about it. But we can't not elect an otherwise solid person who could well manage this country because they are gay, dress in woman's clothing (whatver that means today)or smokes cigarettes. John Edwards will not lose in his quest because he has tons of money and he bought a big house. He'll lose, as a hypothetical example, because people don't think his past actions and current proposals merit electing him as President, not because he falls short in the smile assessment category.

The next President will understand and care about people and have tenable ideas based upon which this country can be run. NO Republicans or anyone other than a Democrat fits that bill at this point.

[marions ghost]

50. thanks

for extending the discussion rather than clamping down on it.

All I'm saying is--the antidote to caring too much about a particular detail of a candidate's life (ie. leading to one issue fanaticism) --may not be to NEVER care about any such details. Of course I agree with the OP's main point that personal details are blown way out of proportion, I just don't agree that they are "non-issues."

You make a good point that the American public may finally be recognizing the ways that "wedge issues" (better term than 'non-issues') are being used to manipulate them. They are beginning to fathom that misuse of personal info can backfire in so many ways (as in your blood donating example). If we have had to go through this whole nightmare for this to finally start sinking in to the collective psyche, it's a big plus.

Because swiftboating has worked so well in the past, the richwing will use it again (even if it's not working so well anymore). So let them. I sense also that the Public in General is developing a greater immunity to the obvious smears and delving deeper before locking onto an opinion. In this climate we Dem supporters need to understand our candidate's Achilles heels and address them effectively, not argue that NObody has any right to bring them up. It's deflection, rather than denial, that we need to get better at. Denial is a hallmark of a downtrodden mentality as much as anything else. It indicates the level of previous abuse. We need to rise above this.

So let the perceived flaws and foibles of our candidates be discussed. In some ways it makes them more human. Bill Clinton's stock actually went up because he stood firm and fought the demons within and without. Everyone could see the hypocrisy --that he was impeached for something that is fairly common
behavior in Washington and in our whole society (no matter the right or wrong of it). Whether Clinton's "hobbies" are our business or not, it was a grave error in judgment on his part. But he recovered rather admirably, as did his wife. We need to be strong against these kinds of attacks, not allergic to them.

We do not live in a society that doesn't care about a candidate's personal life. That's just not realistic. I agree that these things should not determine whether a person is fit to serve. But religion, wealth, sexual orientation, addictions/health habits are all fair game for open discussion when it comes to deciding our public servants. We now have a black candidate and a woman candidate--these are clearly neutral attributes, totally outside a candidate's control, but some consider them negatives nonetheless. We have a long way to go as a culture.

With the exception of smoking and perhaps overdependence on adolescent sexual outlets, one MAY decide that these various things on the OP's list are positives, depending on one's own POV and how much a voter perceives the candidate is "like them." People may actually LIKE a moderately religious candidate, a gay candidate, a wealthy candidate, or even a candidate who has once dressed in drag for fun (an extremely anti-woman or anti-gay man would not dress in drag, not publicly anyway). That's the ONLY thing I like about Rudy Giuliani.

Anyway wiley, thanks for acknowledging the grey of these issues--it's not all right or wrong, black and white, us or them. It takes a village & all that. We Dems should not be allergic to even talking about the issues that the swiftboaters have defined for us. They love silence (esp steamed-up guilty-looking silence), as John Kerry found out the hard way. We need to learn to fight back openly and with good rebuttals.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. You can take off the sack cloth and ashes whenever you wish ......

I did't attack you or even criticise you. I only asked if you felt better. But you, being ready to pick a fight, saw one where one didn't exist.

I have no quarrel with anything you said. I simply made a post that went to a place your sense and sensibilities didn't. And if you actually **read** the OP, you'll see its my *personal* opinion, not a statement of some broad policy.

But if one is predisposed to piss in cornflakes or speak in hyperbolic terms, then one is perfectly welcome to do that here.

Do you disagree with my thread **as far as it went** ...... or is your gripe that it didn't go **where you thought it should**? These are the real issues in your post, as I see them.

[marions ghost]

55. OK...

1. When someone responds "feel better?" and nothing more to a post that is equally as 'genuine' as the original post (as much as anything on a message board is genuine), it can be taken as a snide put-down and a squelch on further discussion.

2. The original list of all the things you don't give a shit about (hyperbolic or not) --is your personal opinion, which you are inviting us to comment on by posting it --unless we're all supposed to just stow it & give you 50 or so thumbsups. I DO give you thumbsup for posting it, but where it becomes too all-encompassing for me is when you say:

"...things from the above list are just stupid and anyone who grouses about them is, in my personal opinion, as stupid and small as the non-issue they choose to use to slur the candidates."

--So therefore ANYone who has a problem with ANY of the points on your list is stupid. That would be some of us here. One person's "grousing" is another person's heartfelt opinion. But you are the only one allowed to grouse apparently. Such overblown angry statements as your post can sometimes stimulate good discussions. I'm certainly open to that. But then be tolerant of disagreement.

3. I think I have adequately covered why I don't necessarily see the points in your list as "non-issues" (see post #50).

4. I'd say the real issue here is how "wedge issues" (thanx wiley) are created and how they are used to silence groups like us as much as to rile up & activate other groups. It is my opinion that we (liberals) have been so neutralized by the abuse of these wedge issues that we can't stand ANY discussion of a candidate's various attributes, lifestyles, personal background, etc. That is unnecessarily paranoid IMO. As we have learned the hard way from the reign of Boosh, we'd BETTER damn well pay attention to 'the content of their character.' Social liberals DO differ from social conservatives in this. Re. our own candidates, I'd love to see us be strong enough to discuss our candidates' social/personal vulnerabilities without being labelled "stupid."

[Bryn]

44. Who is a Mormon? Who smokes? Who dressed in drag?

I only know about the blow job and the big house.

[southernleftylady]

52. wow... really? But here is the real question.. do you CARE who dresses in drag..

and who is mormon or who smokes?

[Bryn]

56. I dont care!

that was meant as a joke. No, I don't care at all. All I care about is his/her ability to be a good leader.

[fujiyama]

46. The above issues are a distraction

but while Romney's particular religious affiliation may not be incredibly important, his religiosity and its intensity is.

[MGD]

49. That's the spirit. Apathy is liberating.

[marions ghost]

51. Can you elaborate?

I am sincerely interested in how someone can say that apathy is liberating, since I never have been able to achieve a state of apathy as long as there is something festering about something. So how does one put a lot of the "incoming" flak we are subjected to on internal Ignore? Is it a matter of vigilance and discipline? A sorting behavior that can be learned? How do you achieve the liberation that comes from apathy? No big deal, I'm just picking apart your comment to understand it better.

[MGD]

53. Surely

"I am sincerely interested in how someone can say that apathy is liberating, since I never have been able to achieve a state of apathy as long as there is something festering about something."
I can't necessarily speak for you. Speaking for myself, however, I found most of my concerns to be nothing more than neurotic little chains.

"So how does one put a lot of the "incoming" flak we are subjected to on internal Ignore?"
It isn't ignored, it's just observed, observed from a primarily neutral perspective with certain understandings. It can also be contemplated and even debated but from a neutral perspective and with certain understandings.

"Is it a matter of vigilance and discipline?
To a certain extent, yes.

A sorting behavior that can be learned?"
Possibly

"How do you achieve the liberation that comes from apathy?"
It is the truth that will set you free and apathy will lead you to the truth. The emotions that you attach to your thoughts and ideas may lead you to the truth eventually but, more often than not, they will obscure the truth and, as such, you will be not be set free or, if you prefer, liberated.

[wiley]

57. I almost disagreed with you.

"It is the truth that will set you free and apathy will lead you to the truth. The emotions that you attach to your thoughts and ideas may lead you to the truth eventually but, more often than not, they will obscure the truth and, as such, you will be not be set free or, if you prefer, liberated."

I've had the truth exposed to me several times through non-apathy. It just became a more solid but the same truth when I stopped being enraged about things.

I sense theology of some sort here.