Yes, we read it the first time. You may repeat it again and again to the same effect. It’s your opinion, and I for one care about it as much as I did the first time.
To save bandwidth, we will so stipulate that the above reflects your opinion.
We didn’t have the Swifties in our camp, Bush did. He let them do what they pleased (outright lying), while turning a blind eye. We had untruths halftruths and outright baldfaced lies from Bush and “charges of treason” from the lapdogs. We had various venom and “torture is OK” from at least ONE notorious radio lapdog AND from our new AG. We had the lapdogs of radio and TV proclaiming glorious victory at the debates when in fact, Bush was so awful even I could have beat him. So who took the lower road?
On our side, as far as I’m concerned, there was too much “don’t drive them away”, don’t “upset them”. In short, don’t show up to the fight.
So who took the lower road?
Well, you know, I seem to recall a little thing called Fahrenheit 9/11 by a little known and struggling film maker called…um…Michael Moore. Something like that. The guy is practically starving he’s so little known. I doubt many people saw his film. Then there were little known groups like moveon.org of course.
Its all a matter of perspective…and partisanship of course. BTW, what were these charges of treason from Bush? I don’t remember any charges of treason, though a lot of BS was spewed by both sides in this election cycle and I might have missed it. The only ones I remember foaming about treason were Bush SUPPORTERS of the more radical type…and they were MORE than balanced out by the monkey man, Bush=Nazi/Bush=Stupid/Bush=evil folks.
As for the lapdogs on TV/Radio etc proclaiming Bush victory in the debates, I only saw that on some of the obvious right wing sites…even Fox said the first debate was a Kerry victory and the second (or third) was a draw. Most other TV or Radio I saw (or listened too) were saying that Kerry won 2 of 3 hands down. Maybe you need to switch to more balanced reporting. 
Guess it depends on how you qualify ‘our side’. If you mean the Kerry campaign only, they you are probably right…but then the Bush campaign didn’t exactly go all out on the mud slinging directly either. It was pretty mild from both main camps…Kerry was a flip flopper and Bush wasn’t effective at leading the nation in times of war. yawn Both official campaigns played it pretty cool, and the Dems admittedly DID try and take a more gentle tact at their own convention. Of course, those Dem SUPPORTERS who crashed the RNC didn’t exactly score your side many points IMO…especially some of the more rabid protesters in NY during the RNC.
It was the parties to a lesser degree and the ‘independant’ groups like Moveon.org, Swift Boat Vets for Truth, Michael Moore and others that did the most venting…and the most mudslinging and foaming at the mouth. And if you count THEM, then I’d say your statement about don’t drive them away, dont upset them (assuming you mean the unaligned center as ‘them’) is ridiculous…unless you REALLY think the center is comfortable with effigies of Bush dressed up like a Nazi and such…or were even comfortable with attacks against a DECORATED war veteran like Kerry. The major foam from the right of course was directed at ‘activist judges’ and about the gay marriage issue…both of which obviously strikes a cord with folks and doesn’t SEEM quite as rabid (especially in light of the fact that over 50% DON’T support gay marrage at this time)…at least it doesn’t seem that way to ‘ordinary folks’ who are the 'Pubs main target audience.
-XT
As answer to the OP question I posit the dread specter of Rational Ignorance.
Rational Ignorance is the Achilles Heel of democracies. It’s an even greater threat to our republic than Cognitive Dissonance. It sits at the the root of CD with a drum of Miracle Grow.
I’ll give you Moore–I thought a lot of his points were really reaching. But what was it about moveon.org that makes you put it in the same category as the actions described by SteveG1 that you were responding to? What did they do that, in your opinion, rises to the level of making poorly-suppored claims denigrating the service of a decorated veteran?
I ask because I suspect you’re informed enough to know the reality behind the “Bush=Hitler ad” that most right-wingers were up in arms about.
Anne Coulter, who says everybody is a traitor, Rush Limbaugh, and the Swifties who said deciding against Viet Nam was treason. People listened to them, believe it or not. I personally know people like this, I work with them. Hell, I was called a traitor and called out to fight, for daring to say Swifties are liars. Right at work. These were the lapdogs. Our cross to bear was Moore and Whoopie 
The media lapdogs made the most noise. Others said Bush was doing “better” - anything is better than nothing, and that’s what the first debate was. But then it’s hard to debate against America, Freedom, Haters, Resolute, Stand Firm, etc. The inability to keep the names and facts straight were not pointed out as the blatant errors they were. On the other hand “I have a plan” got old. Real fast.
Yeah, they both sucked at debating.
Why do it directly when there are "unaffiliated goons to do it for you? Plausible deniability.
I didn’t get that from the reports. I got police sweeps, designated zones for anyone less than totally for Bush, large numbers of arrests on dubious charges.
I hope they weren’t comfortable with any of it, but then these same dirty tactics were used earlier against one of their own, McCain. And, the Swiftboaters were getting money from somewhere in the Bush camp or social circle. They were hatchetmen against McCain and against Kerry. If someone stopped turning a blind eye to them or called them off, or cut off their funding, what would happen? Perosnally, I find them disgusting wastes of flesh. The “gay issue” was a “distraction” from the failure to get Bin Laden, and the stubborn refusal of Iraq to greet us with flowers and chocolates. It was part of that Christian “values” thing. It was a detour. If you’re in trouble, get off the subject.
What is your specific concern regarding the journalist?
Methinks friend xtisme is still pissed that nobody – and certainly not any credible conservative insta-pundit – has managed to prove that any of the facts cited in Fahrenheit 9/11 were actually wrong. After all, it’s easier to call Michael Moore a bunch of nasty names than to address the issues he raised…
I forgot to add one to my “usual suspects” in ny previous post, that being the “wonderfully articulate and unbiased report” that was produced by Sinclair and wich aired on Fox. I wonder how many people thought it was a real report and took it as absolute truth. No, I’d say the liars and mud slingers in the Bush camp did far more damage than Moore, moveon and Whoopie did.
I’ve seen numerous debunkings of F-911…some in answer to cites called by you in fact. The fact that YOU don’t believe them doesn’t mean they haven’t been done. Moores movie is full of distortions, not lies and leading inuendo. Its a masterpiece of spin. Your dogged acceptance of it is really sad rjung. However, just keep telling yourself its all the truth and its only the Swifties who lie, blah blah blah. Maybe you’ll get some traction on that sometime. The point stands though that many people (especially on the right, but not exclusive to the right) see Michael Moore’s film as a direct attack on the president, full of anti-Bush propaganda, distortions and lies…just like the left (but again, not exclusively lefties) see’s the Swift Boat Vets.
Oh, I have no doubt that Coulter and Limbaugh (both nutballs IMHO) said it…I don’t even need a cite for that. However, you seemed to be saying BUSH or folks in his administration said such things…thats what I was asking about.
While I accept that people listen to them, I don’t think they have a major impact except to those already converted…i.e. people who listen to them were ALREADY going to vote Bush. They change no ones mind and were simply preaching to the converted.
Hope you beat the shit out of whoever was unAmerican enough to try and stifle your free speach at work. Tell them from me that THAT is the act of a traitor IMHO…it goes against the very foundation of our nation.
Well, thats the purpose of media lapdogs on both sides…to try and spin things so that their side looks good and the other looks bad. The main stream press spins things too, but they are more subtle about it…usually. CBS being a bit out of the norm as far as the National Guard thing goes.
Bush kept chanting the same things and pretty much stayed focused on what he wanted to talk about. He did a poor job, but mainly because the man is not a very good public speaker. His topics were simplistic and appealing to many. I don’t see how he ‘won’ any of the debates, though he did do better after the first one, and probably tied at least one of the other two.
As to the rest…it was Kerry who kept being vague in the debates (and elsewhere) and saying he had a plan, blah blah blah. I don’t really remember that coming from Bush who basically was just spewing the same ole platitudes over and over about liberty, freedom, fight terrorism, ect. Perhaps you got them confused?
True enough and it goes for both sides. The other thing though is that I don’t always things these ‘independant’ groups are under full control of the main parties…and especially not of the campaigns themselves. I’m sure they are fed some taste treats by the parties and perhaps by the campaigns but I think they kind of do their own thing too…which can hurt their candidate sometimes. I think that some of the more radical left wing ‘independant’ groups DID hurt Kerry in fact, though probably not fatally.
See, and I saw live coverage of the protests going on…and I saw the attempt to crash the RNC by Bush protesters and the whole Michael Moore in the audiance thing. I certainly also saw the ‘police sweeps’ and remember the almost breathless anticipation of the left that the police would become violent, etc etc…which never really materialized.
None of that looked too good (IMO) or reflected well on the Dems…which is unfair as they pretty much had nothing directly to do with it. Protests are all well and good but there was a level of ferocity there and an image of people foaming at the mouth that was…disturbing. This wasn’t by any means from the mainstream Dems mind you, only a small fraction of the most rabid supporters (or anti-Bush crowd who weren’t always Dems at all)…but it reflected on the whole party. Perception becomes reality here and the whole party, and Kerry is wrongfully painted with the same tarred brush.
My point was that the ‘dirty tricks’ were used by BOTH sides in this election…especially if we count the ‘independant’ groups like Swift Boats. No one had clean hands here, there was no moral high road in this election…just which party was the lesser of two evils as far as mudslinging and dirty tricks went.
Certainly someone was fronting money to the Swift Boat vets…someone was fronting money to various left wing groups as well, like Moveon.org. I’ve never seen a direct connection between the Swift Boat vets and the Bush campaign, or even the Republican party and one isn’t necessary…there are plenty of rich Republican supporters that would fork over case to aid their case…just like there are plenty of rich Democrat supporters who would do the same.
I agree to a certain extent that the gay issue was a distraction…and one the Dems helped to bring about. THEY were the ones who made it a campaign issue by pushing things so close to the election. There was no need for it to be an issue at all, but various judges decided to use their power to go against the wills of their respective states…and bring it up on the radar of the faithful. The Republicans wisely leaped on the issue…wisely because it WAS a good distraction, and it played well to the majority of Americans who still cling to this discrimination. The time for full gay rights signified by whats trying to be achieved with the various gay marrage movements isn’t yet here…and it probably contributed to Kerry losing, because this IS a core issue to some and probably motivated many to go to the polls (even though Kerry also would have been opposed to full gay marrage if he were elected…ironic, no?).
-XT
For my part, I’ve never paid attention to Moore. I had already decided that he was not very interesting to me. So, I never saw his movies. I like to think I can recognize spin, no matter who it is from. For me, his reputation preceded him.
They are nuts alright, but Rush for one has a huge audience. He is, a very capable and persuasive speaker when he chooses to be. He is good enough at it to sway the “undecideds”. While I dislike his hypocrisy and his “leanings” I have to admire his skills. Coulter is just a loony. She needs some meds.
I offered to, and he was VERY reluctant to deliver on his physical threats when he saw that I was so willing. The downside was, I was the one who got scolded. Oh well, that is one office bully that wound up getting punked in front of everybody and exposed for the coward he was - someone who had scared other people over the years with his threats. What had really torqued me was, he had come into MY cubicle and intiated the whole exchange.
No confusion, if you get the drift of my other posts. I really wanted to choke the BOTH of them. Being brutally honest, they both were pathetic debators.
It’s always very revealing when people vote on one issue, especially when the issue is peripheral to the main policy questions and the vote is based on exclusion and bigotry/ignorance. I don’t think either Bush or Kerry are personally anti-gay, but they do have to “appease” a rather large part of their constituencies. It’s distasteful as hell, but it’s a grim reality. If Bush and Cheney had gone with what I think they personally believe, the “values” bloc would have roasted them. If Kerry had been more vocal against it, the Democrat counterparts would have roasted him. It’s a shame when you have to pander to bigots, just to run for office.
It isn’t a matter of belief but of fact. The fact is that none of these so-called “debunkings” withstands scrutiny. We’ve been over that thoroughly here. Tell ya what, though - you tell us what you consider to be the worst single factual inaccuracy in the movie. Just one.
It’s certainly slanted, even a hatchet job. But nonfactual? He couldn’t show footage that didn’t exist, ya know.
[quoteThe point stands though that many people (especially on the right, but not exclusive to the right) see Michael Moore’s film as a direct attack on the president, full of anti-Bush propaganda, distortions and lies…just like the left (but again, not exclusively lefties) see’s the Swift Boat Vets.[/quote]
Yet another example, if any were needed, of the Pubbies’ endless mantra of “They’re at least as bad as we are”. The difference, unfortunately for you, is that F911 is not full of lies but the Swifties’ story is. We’ve been over that here quite a bit, too.
On an individual basis, that’s probably true - no one talking head has been solely responsible for anything. But they, along with the full list of RW commentators of varying degrees of choler, do add to the general atmosphere, the sentiment among the casual listeners that “If all these people are saying similar things, maybe it’s true.”
Kerry was vague? Tell us, what did Bush say was *his * plan? “Stay the course” blah blah blah. That’s it.
Yep, Kerry was the vague one. Right.
It is the responsibility of those who see that, presumably including you, not to buy into it. Why did you?
Sigh. “They’re at least as bad as we are” again.
Cite for who made it an issue? Oh yeah, “they”.
Only one court, and not against the state’s will.
Wisely only in the sense that it worked, not that it was a good thing for the country. That’s yet another indictment of them as having no motivation higher than gaining power, and no understanding that there could be a higher motivation.
The conservatives said that about civil rights for blacks for many years, too, and it was just as false then as now. Why do you defend that mindset?
Are we talking about Fahrenheit 9/11 or Bush’s Social Security Reform Plan?
And I think the so-called documentary does not withstand scrutiny. Hell, I was picking it appart while watching the thing. The worst factual inaccuracy? The entire movie was spin…there is no ‘worst’ part IMO, its all of a kind. I’ll give a single example from my memory of the movie though (yeah, I saw it too…though I wisely rented it so I could go through it slowly and look at certain parts again)…the entire part about the Bin Laden family in the US was pure spin and inuendo. Oh, certainly nothing was factually inaccurate…it was how it was presented though, the way it was spun that LEAD a person (especially one who wasn’t really up on the actual events…Moore’s target audiance with this movie IMO) to an incorrect conclusion. Hell, this characterized the entire movie. Moore didn’t out and out lie…in fact, most of the movie was factually accurate.
However, its how he presented these ‘facts’, how he cut and pasted, how the dialogue leads one to false conclusions due to presentation. As I said, it was a masterwork of spin…and I meant it. Masterfully done, and unless you were really up on things, which Moore was counting on, you would certainly be lead to draw totally incorrect conclusions. However, the FACTS in the movie were certainly real, and that helps lend the movie weight to the converted…they can hem and haw as you and rjung are doing (‘But, but…its FACTUALLY correct!!!’), while ignoring the fact that Moore was carefully crafting the ‘facts’ to lead to erronious conclusions. You know…spin. Kind of like what you accuse Bush of doing with the run up to the Iraq war, no?
So you say. From my perspective it looks like pure partisanship to me (I’m not a ‘Pubbies’ btw). See, the Republicans pretty much think the Swift Boat Vets were telling the truth mainly, and you Dems seem to think that F911 wasn’t ‘full of lies’ which, while technically true isn’t the whole story…is it? So, it seems to me that there IS no high road here…just partisan spin on what you believe or don’t believe.
As far as us being over this all quite a bit, thats certainly true…both F911 and the Swift Boat Vets were debated here, no doubt. However, I myself made different conclusions than you obviously did, at least with reguards to F911. Just because there is a possible consensus on this board doesn’t make it true…especially in light of the absolute fact that, at least as far as GD is concerned, the overwhelming majority were opposed to Bush, supported Kerry, and are certainly left of center with respect to the rest of the US. When a guy like me is repeatedly accused of being a right winger you really need to check your premise IMO.
Exactly…stay the course, freedom and Liberty, fight terrorism, world safe for democracy, in god we trust, blah blah blah. Platitudes. Zero substance but hardly vague. Even ‘stay the course’ isn’t vague…it means that he’d do exactly what he did in his first term in his second. If you liked it, vote for him…if you wanted change then you’d burn in hellfire…er, then vote for Kerry instead.
Kerry kept saying he had a plan but never detailed anything about what he’d actually DO. He was most certainly vague. Unless you wanted to hunt through his web site of course which most people neither had the time nor the inclination to do.
Yep, he was. Right. I find it hard to believe that you seriously think Kerry was concise and layed out his plans well. Maybe your definition of ‘vague’ is different than my own.
Oh, I DIDN’T buy it. I didn’t vote Badnarik because I was suckered by the vast Pub spin machine…or the vast Crat spin machine either. I found neither man appealing in the least. I KNEW I wasn’t going to vote for Bush since the Iraq war kicked off. I decided not to vote for Kerry because I didn’t agree with what little I knew of his plans…mostly on the domestic front. The debates pretty much convinced me that neither man was worthy of my vote.
Not at all. I’m saying you are BOTH bad, and that its just a matter of degree. Partisanship blinds you to the wrongs done by your own party while being a focus of wrongs done TO your party by the other side. And vice versa for the Republicans. Both sides should be ashamed of yourselves…but you aren’t.
You want a cite for who kicked off the gay marrage issue by bringing it to the publics attention during an election year? Really? Because I’d be glad to give you the cites for the judges (one in Kerry’s home state for gods sake) that decided to make this an issue if you REALLY want it…though it seems pretty silly to me as you are more than well aware of it being a veteran of this board.
Maybe I’ll have to dig up that cite after all as one of us is confused. As to the states will, maybe I’m wrong here but I don’t remember a majority vote for gay marrage in any of the states where activist judged attempted to grant gay marrage through government fiat. At any rate, even if I’m wrong there, the majority of citizens in the US are opposed to gay marrage at this time so it was madness to bring it up during an election year IMO. The time just isn’t right…you might not like that, I certainly don’t like it, but its reality. And it probably hurt Kerry, perhaps even fatally, even though Kerry was most likely opposed also…guilt through association, and a significant faction on the Dems side WAS certainly pushing the issue.
Well, I agree that its not wise for the country to discriminate…and I think eventually they will come around just like they did on other civil rights issues. Its just not that time yet. However, I disagree with you that it was only about gaining power…at least as far as THIS issue is concerned. I think a lot of Republicans, especially those of a religious bent truely ARE opposed to gay marrage on what they see as moral grounds…even Bush.
Who said I defeneded it? Any idea what the libertarian stance is on gay marrage? All I said was the country wasn’t ready yet, that the majority still oppose the issue. I think of this as the 50’s as far as the gay marrage issue goes…its getting close, things are starting to change especially perceptions wise, and a few more years should see a swing in the majority away from discrimination. Its just not ready to happen right NOW, and the Dems pushing this issue were foolish though I have to give them points for sticking with their convictions.
-XT
Help out those folks who aren’t “really up on the actual events”. WRT the bin Laden family, what was the incorrect conclusion Moore’s movie is responsible for producing? Or, if it suits you better, what is the correct conclusion and how do you know that? When I watched the movie, I wasn’t planted with any conclusion. Granted, Moore asked the audience a lot of rhetorical questions that were clearly designed to persuade the viewer’s opinion, but IIRC he never went out and told you what to think.
Sort of like Bush attempting to obscure the difference between 9/11 and Iraq by using the terms interchangably? 
All joking aside, I confess that I don’t know what incorrect conclusions you’re talking about. Can you elaborate further?
Spin != crafting facts to lead to erroneous conclusions. When I think of spin, I think of facts deliberately presented in a way that supports a particular opinion. For instance, pro-Bush pundits “spun” Bush’s performance in the debates by choosing to describe his clumsy repetitiveness in glowing terms, rather than with the adjectives a more unbiased spectator would probably choose. Does that mean that someone listening to the pundit would gain an erroneous interpretation of the events? Not necessarily. It is too subjective to say, right?
Ummm, let’s see. No.
“Iraq is a imminent threat to the US.” That is a mistruth.
“Iraq has the potential to attack us with nuclear weapons and leave the country in a mushroom cloud.” A mistruth at worst, misleading hyperbole of the basest sort at best.
“Iraq has WMDs.” Another mistruth.
These things are not on par with your basic “spin”. To use the pundit example again, Bush’s behavior leading up to the war would be like the pundit reporting that Kerry cheated during the first debate as fact, and then citing the video clips of him slipping something (like a pen) out his jacket. Once you step out of the realm of opinion and into fact, spin has nothing to do with lying.
And Bush never said it. Please read the Spinsanity article before you perpetuate this myth again. Sorting out the “imminent threat” debate.
Bush’s Iraq policy was explicitly centered around the idea that we couldn’t wait until they became an imminent threat. You should make sure you understand the policy before you critique it. You may find out it’s actually more disturbing than you think.
Didn’t say that either. The point was to PREVENT them from getting that capability.
Yep, Bush sure said that. As did almost everyone else. But that horse has been beaten beyond recoginition.
Let me be clear that I’m not defending the Bush doctrine, just explaining it.
“Iraq has WMD”. Yup, he said it. He also insisted that Iraq had been tied fo Bin Laden. He said also Iraq was actively working on more WMD - all sorts of CBR (chemical, biological, radiological), in spite of claims to the contrary by UN and US agencies.
As for the Bush doctrine,
- We will attack and invade sovereign nations based on their failure to prove a negative-they couldn’t prove they don’t have WMD.
- We will attack and invade sovereign nations to topple them and install our own governments of choice.
- We will attack and invade sovereign nations to further “my” personal philosophy.
- We will attack and invade sovereign nations because if we don’t they MIGHT be a treat some day.
- We will institute indefinite incarceration incommunicado, with no charges being filed.
- We will legitimize torture as a means of information gathering and punishment (including shock, beatings, rape, anal rape, sexual humiliation, etc.)
- If absolutely forced to hold a trial, it will be a military style tribunal,
- We will paint all dissenters as being traitors.
- We will become more invasive in our citizens business in the name of security. We will have secret courts ordering peoples reading habits to be examined, and will conduct searches without the need for a search warrant.
- We will delay, suppress, or alter any reports that do not follow the “party line”.
I can’t go any further without invoking the Wrath Of Godwin. Oh, I already did I think
Actually, if you read the National Security Strategy, we mere ‘adapted’ the concept of what constitutes an ‘imminent threat’ Hence the ‘doctrine of pre-emption’ rather than a doctrine of prevention.
Actually Team Bush clearly said that Iraq had the potential to attack us with nuclear weapons. Bush himself said tht he’d read an IAEA report that said Hussein could have a nuke in six months. (Of course the report did not say that. Mr. Fleischer noted that the Prez was merely ‘imprecise’.)
Yeah, I know that he never said “imminent”, John. (Just like he never outright said Iraq caused 9/11. Just like he never explicitly said that Saddam and bin Laden were allies. But whatever.) The quotes I wrote were not to meant to represent Bush verbatim; sorry if that wasn’t clear. But hello? Where is the evidence that Iraq was even a “gathering threat” or a “potentially imminent threat”? The fact that Iraq was called a threat that warranted war exceeds the definition of spin and tromps into the realm of falsehood/mischaracterization/factual error/whateveryouwannacallit. That was my point. Didn’t mean to rehash the debate over whether Bush said the word “imminent” or not.
Hence my use of the word “potential”.
Okay, but my point remains, no? xtisme, has attempted to equate Moore’s spin with the disproven allegations that took us to war. I think that is a misguided way of seeing things.
Yeah I know.
If you’re paraphrasing, do not use quotation marks, since they mean one thing only: a verbatim quote.