We are NOT sorry world.

[lochinvar]

Indicating...what? That the liberal "I am sorry" crowd is more responsible than the "I am NOT sorry, you f**king pu**ies!" crowd because the "sorry" crowd actually tries to sustain a higher standard of discourse?

I can't see what you're driving at...

[kalivor]

Indicating...what? That the liberal "I am sorry" crowd is more responsible than the "I am NOT sorry, you f**king pu**ies!" crowd because the "sorry" crowd actually tries to sustain a higher standard of discourse?

I can't see what you're driving at...

I'm looking at the posts where the "nice" and "well mannered" posts at the wearesorry site are compared to the boorish ones at the yourewelcomeeverybody site.

The liberals who are apologising aren't all nice and loving. Many want to say nasty things, just like the people on the yourewelcomeeverybody site are doing.

The person running the site doesn't allow it.

In other words: There's nothing to indicate that the liberals are nicer or better mannered. The mean and ill-mannered ones are just being censored.

[The0ne]

true, i was violently pissed when Bush won, BUT the person who runs the wearesorry site is probably a die-hard "liberal" judging by the fact that he/she took the time and effort to put all that stuff up, and he/she had the manners to censor the posts. Why didn't the conservative editor of the other site? And why are there so few posts on the wearenotsorry site that are well-mannered? And why are there so many posts that were sent in by mannered liberals??? If you still don't get it, lochinvar put it very well the first time.

[kalivor]

true, i was violently pissed when Bush won, BUT the person who runs the wearesorry site is probably a die-hard "liberal" judging by the fact that he/she took the time and effort to put all that stuff up, and he/she had the manners to censor the posts. Why didn't the conservative editor of the other site? And why are there so few posts on the wearenotsorry site that are well-mannered? And why are there so many posts that were sent in by mannered liberals??? If you still don't get it, lochinvar put it very well the first time.

I had a long post written, but it wasn't addressing your questions properly.

1. Why didn't the conservative editor of the other site [moderate it]?

Well, believe it or not, said editor is a human being. One who has the following purpose for building the site: "This site is a direct response/spoof of another site out there that lets losers post pictures of them apologizing for George Bush's victory ..."

Yep. Already calling the other side losers. In other words, if the kind of editor you'd have liked was calling the shots, the current editor's picture would probably not have been included.

And let's not forget the wonderful T-Shirt section, in which the site itself sells shirts with logos such as "I only support gay marriage if both chicks are hot." Real winners, the people who might moderate this site.

The liberal site originated with the maintainer simply posting his picture, with his message, online. It was honest, and got the ball rolling. The conservative site is a spoof. It's making fun of them. It was created to say "f*** you." You don't really expect those who created this website to exhibit restraint, do you?

2. Why are there so few posts on the wearenotsorry site that are well-mannered?

Several reasons:
i. It's a recent site. Not sorry -- appears to have been started Nov. 17th. That's five days. Given that this is the first I've seen of it, I figure it's not getting much publicity, either. Still, a lot of hits for such a short time (>25,000) ... but still. Of those, how many post?
ii. Rudeness. The "you're welcome" site was rude from the start. You can tell just by looking at it, as I mentioned in response to your first question. With the overall look and feel of the site, and the myriad of rude messages contained on it -- how many intelligent, self-respecting, well-mannered conservatives would want to be associated with it?
iii. It's the internet. Since when are people well-mannered on an unmoderated public forum on the internet?

3. And why are there so many posts that were sent in by mannered liberals?

Again, we have several reasons.
i. It's not a recent site. It was started the night of (well, the very-early-morning-after) the election. The next day, the guy who made it had received so many hits, he had to look for a new server. It was moved on November 5th. In case you're unaware that's a lot more time to get people submitting things.
ii. It's moderated. If someone wants a message up, they have to write something nice. So, even if one were inclined to post something rude, if you really wanted it up, you'd have to refrain.
iii. Publicity. This site has definitely been in the paper. Publicity=More hits= more responses of every variety. Including well-mannered ones.
iv. The nature of other responses. Unlike the conservative site, the liberal site doesn't have anybody saying things that they don't want to be associated with. Ain't that grand!

My basic point is that comparing the two sites is pretty silly. Pretty much the only thing that they have in common is that they encourage people to send in photos of themselves, with a message that either says "I'm sorry" or "you're welcome." To compare the sorts of people who voted for or against Bush based on these two sites is an idea flawed beyond belief.

[The0ne]

did you even SEE the people who sent in stuff to this site though?? I saw more automatic weapons on that site than in Newsweek! True, the people on that site are not representative of all the people who voted for Bush, but they represent a portion of America who did vote for Bush, and my initial point was "look at these people, they seem ignorant and violent. They all voted for Bush. Hmmm, what does that say about Bush as a candidate? He appeals to ignorant and gun-wielding people."

My pulling in the wearesorry site was only because Rogue's response was people on that site posted violently aggressive and demeaning letters as well. . .

[lochinvar]

My basic point is that comparing the two sites is pretty silly.

Yep. Looks like the "liberals/I'm sorry" crowd took the civil high ground, and the "f**k you" crowd let them. Doesn't speak well for these particular Bush supporters.

To compare the sorts of people who voted for or against Bush based on these two sites is an idea flawed beyond belief.

Agreed, one cannot in good conscience extrapolate from these two sites to formulate an accurate model of either voting population.

However, one can compare the manners--or lack thereof--of these two particular groups of people, to the "we're not sorry" crowd's great detriment.

[Soldier]

I intend to be a massive problem for president Bush. I will be a problem if he tries to invade more countries. I will be a problem if he cuts military pay AGAIN. I will be a problem if he keeps extending the tours of duty of minimally trained national gaurd units in Iraq. Sometimes to shape the future you need to be a major problem!

How do you intend to be a problem?

[Soldier]

However, contemportary christianity is closely affiliated with the line of thought that says "Believe in Him or go to Hell (literally)". Do you see how this is objectionable?

Nope, not really. You obviously don't believe in it; so why should it bother you?

[Westley]

I'm not sorry I voted for Bush. Has nothing, or very little, to do with my religion. I weighed the options, looked at BOTH candidates honestly & I feel I made an educated decision. You may disagree. I really don't care. If Kerry had won & Bush had lost, I wouldn't be as angry as some people are right now. I'd move on. You know why? Because it's over. Instead of crying about the past, do what you can NOW to shape the future. If you do nothing but complain & toss off hateful remarks about the current president & those who voted for him, you're merely a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. So, which do you want to be?

By the way, the old "we hate Christians" crap is getting pretty old. If you don't like Christianity, don't be one. That's your right. Just remember that others have a right to be Christian if they wish. We aren't any less intelligent than you, & most of us don't think you are any less intelligent than us. I say "most" because we have those who misrepresent the faith. What you may consider "dumb" for us to do, may not really be "dumb" if you sit down & really TALK to us with an open mind.

We don't christians. We hate radical christians like the one's in "Saved."

[Westley]

Nope, not really. You obviously don't believe in it; so why should it bother you?

The reason it bothers him is because it cost him the presidency. I'm a christian. Even before I was LDS I was Catholic. And this reminds me too much of what I hear about in history class, like Maximilien Robespierre who started the friggin Reign of Terror in France. Their traits are oddly similar. People rooted for him at first because he was strong in his beliefs. So it was okay when he started chopping ppl's head off.

[Soldier]

Regarding comparing the two sites: I imagine the second is simply a parody of the first. Because of this, making it more rude and ignorant would actually better serve its purpose as a parody. Look at the banner - "I support gay marriage only if both chicks are hot." Who would seriously say something like this, let alone for their ad banner? Somebody who really doesn't care about the issue one way or another. That's not a right-wing whack-job banner; that's a teenage male banner. Sounds to me more like it's making fun of those who support gay marriage, by implying that that is the reason why.

[Westley]

We need more Republican teachers. That way kids would go democrat. Maybe.

[Soldier]

The reason it bothers him is because it cost him the presidency. I'm a christian. Even before I was LDS I was Catholic. And this reminds me too much of what I hear about in history class, like Maximilien Robespierre who started the friggin Reign of Terror in France. Their traits are oddly similar. People rooted for him at first because he was strong in his beliefs. So it was okay when he started chopping ppl's head off.

There's a huge difference between being strong in one's beliefs and being a paranoid zealot. Do you really think people like Robespierre were truly religious? I think if you had the chance to talk to them, they'd really have very little belief in anything but themselves - they only use religion as a means of manipulation.

In any case, you didn't say that zealots were what bothered you. You said that the "believe or go to hell" line bothered you, and I don't see why this should.

[Soldier]

We need more Republican teachers. That way kids would go democrat. Maybe.

...because that makes a lot of sense...

[epeezack]

2) separation of church and state? anyone? its fine, imo, if you vote for someone because they share similar beliefs and that happens via religion, but there were masses of people who cited bush's religion as their choice and they felt that "God wanted him to be president" or somesuch.

You need a history lesson dude. The U.S. Constitution says:"Congress shall make no law that establishes a religion" i.e., we can't lock people up becuse of there belifes. I'm 15 years old and I know the Constitution better then you.

Go back to school.


Palmer

[Soldier]

Oh, get off your high horse already.

I'm not even sure what either of you were trying to say, but has it even begun to enter your mind that perhaps you might have mis-read something? Make a point, fine. Just don't be an *** about it.