Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 125
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by atnight
    What an eloquent observation!

    It wasn't meant to be cutting, although your sarcasm is noted about my lack of punditry filled footnotes to address all twenty-plus or so of your fallacy laden accusations and republi-jargon. I had no intention my statement serving as a 'zinger', amidst heated debate.

    Here's my observation- Based on the inflammatory angle of your original post, I was SURPRISED anyone met you in serious debate.
    Perhaps you'd be better served countering his arguements, rather than claiming them as "Republi-jargon" and talking points. Certainly his first five paragraphs are accurate, are they not?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Perhaps you'd be better served countering his arguements, rather than claiming them as "Republi-jargon" and talking points. Certainly his first five paragraphs are accurate, are they not?
    regarding the first five- they represent a severely slanted opinion trying to sound objective (ie making concessions about the Dole candidacy), which is fine, to a point, to at least work off of.

    Yet when you add paragraphs 6, 7, and 8, which are so severely spun, it is foolish to engage this person in serious debate. Rush Limbaugh has been doing this spin for years and other more recent thugs like Sean Hannity and O'Reilly have escalated it to the 'tough guy' degree represented here. Basically what is done is you take heavily negative opinion of your subject matter and argue it through questioning as an understood/universal truth, putting the person on the other side of the debate on the immediate defensive, as the wording of the question isn't even legitimate in the first place. However, if they answer the question, that essentially means that they agree with the wording of it and automatically puts them in a position where they're digging themselves out of a hole. Colmes (from Hannity and Colmes) and other deliberately weak Democrats are used as a punching bag this way on the show by Hannity. It is intellectually offensive that these days this stuff is passed off as legitimate news.

    On the flipside, when you spin a question like this to your own side, it equally lacks objectivity, but because it's so slanted, the question comes off like a softball. ie "Mr. President, How can you put up with the Senate Democrats holding up the process and doing blah blah...". The obvious (to me) problem with this question is that it assumes the Senate Dems are in the wrong as to present their judgment (their job) which hold up something the President is trying to do which is on the other hand, somehow absolutely the right thing. Not to mention it paints Senate Democrats as children, as the President is supposed to have to 'put up with them'. Questions of this nature and this sort of scam was recently uncovered with the Talon reporter Guckert (alias Gannon), who on few credentials gained access to White House press status while simultaneously using a fake name and hosting gay porn sites. Clearly a plant, though certainly disavowed by the administration.

    Now you can see how many sentences it took just to dissect the problems of slant with that one question. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the original posts are loaded with similarly spun questions. That's why I mused at the Herculean process someone would have to undergo to engage in serious debate and dissect these fallacies point by point.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by atnight
    regarding the first five- they represent a severely slanted opinion trying to sound objective (ie making concessions about the Dole candidacy), which is fine, to a point, to at least work off of.
    I would say they're accurate nonetheless. Maybe some editorializing on it.

    1. It was a reversal of the current situation in 1980. Democrats were the reigning Party.

    2. Seems to be an opinion...

    3. The so-called "Republic Revolution" did happen. Was it Tom Brokaw that said the country just had a giant hissy-fit?

    4. Speaking to the Dole issue specifically, he was a weak candidate, and IMO was only nominated because it was "his time," and President Clinton seemed a lock. However, it was **** Morris who came up with "Triangulation."

    Lastly, the tide was turning in 1996.

    5. Accurate, but with some editorial opinion. The GOP did come to power.

    Quote Originally Posted by atnight
    Yet when you add paragraphs 6, 7, and 8, which are so severely spun, it is foolish to engage this person in serious debate. Rush Limbaugh has been doing this spin for years and other more recent thugs like Sean Hannity and O'Reilly have escalated it to the 'tough guy' degree represented here. Basically what is done is you take heavily negative opinion of your subject matter and argue it through questioning as an understood/universal truth, putting the person on the other side of the debate on the immediate defensive, as the wording of the question isn't even legitimate in the first place. However, if they answer the question, that essentially means that they agree with the wording of it and automatically puts them in a position where they're digging themselves out of a hole. Colmes (from Hannity and Colmes) and other deliberately weak Democrats are used as a punching bag this way on the show by Hannity. It is intellectually offensive that these days this stuff is passed off as legitimate news.
    I stopped at the first five specifically because the rest is opinion or questions by 1911. Although, if you think Hannity & Colmes is news, you're sadly mistaken. Actually I don't think you do, but you say it is passed off as such. I would disagree. All of these talking head shows are just opinions on current events. I would hope people wouldn't take it as "news" anymore than they should take the Letterman Top Ten list as such. It is entertainment of a news nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by atnight
    On the flipside, when you spin a question like this to your own side, it equally lacks objectivity, but because it's so slanted, the question comes off like a softball. ie "Mr. President, How can you put up with the Senate Democrats holding up the process and doing blah blah...". The obvious (to me) problem with this question is that it assumes the Senate Dems are in the wrong as to present their judgment (their job) which hold up something the President is trying to do which is on the other hand, somehow absolutely the right thing. Not to mention it paints Senate Democrats as children, as the President is supposed to have to 'put up with them'. Questions of this nature and this sort of scam was recently uncovered with the Talon reporter Guckert (alias Gannon), who on few credentials gained access to White House press status while simultaneously using a fake name and hosting gay porn sites. Clearly a plant, though certainly disavowed by the administration.
    Point taken. No real arguement from me. It goes both ways though, I'm sure you'd agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by atnight
    Now you can see how many sentences it took just to dissect the problems of slant with that one question. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the original posts are loaded with similarly spun questions. That's why I mused at the Herculean process someone would have to undergo to engage in serious debate and dissect these fallacies point by point.
    But again, the latter part of the post is opinion and questions. You need not make a line by line rebuttal. Just offer something to counter a point ot two, rather than saying it is merely Republi-jargon. Else, it just looks like you're spewing Demo-Crap
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  4. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    3. The so-called "Republic Revolution" did happen. Was it Tom Brokaw that said the country just had a giant hissy-fit?
    It was Peter Jennings:

    "Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It's clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It's the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old."

    Media bias at its finest.
    Talldog
  5. #45  
    There sure must be a lot of angry two year olds
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    It was Peter Jennings:

    "Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It's clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It's the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old."

    Media bias at its finest.
    Thanx Dog. Nice to have a Canadian news anchor tell American voters they act like two year olds....
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Thanx Dog. Nice to have a Canadian news anchor tell American voters they act like two year olds....
    He became an American citizen 7/28/03. So much for living in the "Great White" Guess he wanted American healthcare more.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  8. #48  
    THE TIME: The last days of 1999.

    THE SCENE: A smoke-filled rooom. The wall is covered with framed pictures of Reagan, Goldwater, Strom Thurmond, and Satan (the latter with "Karl: XXXXOOOO -- Stn." scrawled across the bottom). Six fat balding white men in blue suits are seated around the table. One of them -- ROVE -- is seated at the head of the table and exudes a zenlike calm. The others are agitated.

    MAN #1: I tell you, Karl, we'll never swing it. He isn't right.

    MAN #2: He's too rich, too privileged, too patrician.

    MAN #3: He isn't the right carrier for our message.

    ROVE: Relax. Trust me. He's perfect. They'll buy it.

    MAN #1: Karl, we need to swing the middle, the working people, the cultural right, or we'll never win. How can this guy do it?

    ROVE: He's a man of the people. He's simple and straighforward, like them. He's not an intellectual. He likes things that regular folks like. He's a cowboy.

    MAN #1: Man of the people? Simple? Not intellectual? Cowboy? Jesus Christ, Karl, he was born in Connecticut to a rich family. He went to Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School. He's never had a job or owned anything that his family wealth didn't get him. And the cowboy thing is about as sincere as Britney Spears' Kabbalah bracelet. How are you going to run a campaign that convinces people he's a simple, cowboy-style man of the people?

    ROVE: I'm not.

    MAN #1: Huh?

    ROVE: They are.

    MAN #1: You mean ....

    ROVE: The Democrats. The Republican-bashers. The late-night comics. The Streisands and Sheens and Frankens and the ... the ... who's that guy who always wears a shirt what looks like the dog threw up on it? The enviro-nut?

    MAN #4: Ed Begley.

    MAN #5: Jr.

    ROVE: Right, the Begleys. The Begley Jrs.

    MAN #1: You are suggesting that the Left will position our candidate exactly the way we want him positioned?

    ROVE: [Nods and smiles]

    MAN #1: Look, Karl, I hate the liberals too, but we've got to be clear-headed about this. We can't count on the left to act like gullible morons for the next year -- scratch that, the next five years, he'd need to get re-elected as well.

    ROVE: [Raises one eyebrow and smirks]

    MAN #1: [Gets up and paces around the room during this speech, and next ones, increasingly agitated and waving arms] It's just not going to happen. They have to be smart enough to know that they are getting duped, right? They can't be that stupid, can they? I mean, they KNOW that this is a country where a whole lot of people don't go to college, where there's a broad and old anti-intellectual streak, where the people celebrate the plain-spoken and homespun above book-learning. They can't be dumb enough to make their main meme that our guy is a dummy, can they?

    ROVE: [Continues to smirk, shrugs]

    MAN #1: And he's a Andover-Yale-Harvard guy from a patrician family. I mean, to help us make him into a man of the people, they'd have to go with a meme that he's a thoughtless hick, and indulge in making fun of the Wal-Mart and NASCAR crowd. They'd have to concentrate on that so much that we can make him the populist even though our policies, let's be blunt here, screw the little guy. They can't be that stupid, can they? They can't ignore their good sense and the better angels of their nature in favor of venting their spleen along class and culture lines, can they?

    ROVE: [whistles softly to himself]

    MAN #1: C'mon, Karl, next you'll tell me that the Left will come up with some sort of good state/bad state thing and alienate the whole Midwest.

    ROVE: [Eyes perk up, makes a note on his pad.]

    MAN #1: And the cowboy thing. Jesus, the cowboy thing. Look, no one would ever buy this guy as a real cowboy. Cowboys don't go to Andover. Cowboys don't come from families that use "summer" as a verb. The only way you could make him a cowboy is if the most visible representatives of the Left were stupid enough to call him that as if it were an insult .. if the voices of the Left were stupid enough to ignore the fact that a cowboy is an iconic American hero, that every time anyone called Reagan a cowboy as an insult it drove his numbers through the roof, that the only people who think that being a cowboy is bad are Frenchmen and the Yale political science department. Look, Karl, it just ain't gonna happen.

    ROVE: [Smiles, takes a deep drag on his cigar, exhales contentedly] When I get to the Oval Office, I think I'm going to have a desk chair upholstered with baby seal.

    FINIS
  9. #49  
    KAREN HUGHES AND KARL ROVE WEAR GOOSE HUNTING OUTFITS FOR HALLOWEEN!
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Fed
    THE TIME: The last days of 1999.

    THE SCENE: A smoke-filled rooom. The wall is covered with framed pictures of Reagan, Goldwater, Strom Thurmond, and Satan (the latter with "Karl: XXXXOOOO -- Stn." scrawled across the bottom). Six fat balding white men in blue suits are seated around the table. One of them -- ROVE -- is seated at the head of the table and exudes a zenlike calm. The others are agitated.

    [...]

    ROVE: [Smiles, takes a deep drag on his cigar, exhales contentedly] When I get to the Oval Office, I think I'm going to have a desk chair upholstered with baby seal.

    FINIS
    LOL! A "fair and balanced" shredding of both sides....
  11. MJSgl's Avatar
    Posts
    23 Posts
    Global Posts
    24 Global Posts
    #51  
    Update...

    anyone home? any new thoughts? hello?
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by MJSgl
    Update...

    anyone home? any new thoughts? hello?
    You took the time to write this...why not include your own thoughts??
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  13. #53  
    The Democrats: A party without a base

    "Five months after the presidential election, Democrats are still pointing fingers at one another and trying to figure out why Republicans won. Was the problem the party's position on social issues or taxes or defense or what? Were there tactical errors made in the conduct of the campaign? Were the right advisers heard? Was the candidate flawed?"

    Bill Bradley from the New Jork Times today Here
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  14.    #54  
    Bumped to the top so that DA and NRG can comment on why, if Republicans are so corrupt and EEEEEVIL, they have been beating the dog snot out of the opposition.

    Does anyone here there think they'll respond? If they do respond, will they be able to do so without talking about the masses being duped by Karl Rove, or the Diebold voting machines are rigged, or that voters were suppresed by Republican operatives?
  15. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #55  
    Kick. What a difference a year makes.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #56  
    What? November already came and went?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. #57  
    On a much more civilized note, I have been seeing hints amongs the political commentariat that perhaps the Democrats may indeed have some difficulties winning in November, 2006 for a very prosaic reason: poor fundraising and poor "get out the vote" logistical organization. Blame has been laid at the feet of Howard Dean.

    This may be Republican spin. It might be Democratic reverse psychology. Or it might be true. No need to perspire and rant. Just wait and see what happens in November.

    But in my non-political experience, the "win" usually goes to the person who prepares relentlessly. Go John Wooden (he said, as a UCLA alumnus).

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out in November. If the D's fail to do well, it will also be interesting to see whether they take responsibility for their own actions or whether they blame others for their misfortune.

    Same for the R's. If they tank in November will they accept that it is largely because of self-destructive actions on their part? Or will they say "Stupid voters" or "Biased media" and deflect the blame from themselves?

    Gotta take responsibility for your own actions. It's the only way forward. Victimhood leaves you mired, immobilized, bitter, and useless.

    Me personally I look at the D's and the R's and retch.
  18. #58  
    The D's cant rest on the tired "R's are bad...look what they have done" line. If they do, they will be swept.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tastypeppers
    It will be interesting to see how this plays out in November. If the D's fail to do well, it will also be interesting to see whether they take responsibility for their own actions or whether they blame others for their misfortune.

    Same for the R's. If they tank in November will they accept that it is largely because of self-destructive actions on their part? Or will they say "Stupid voters" or "Biased media" and deflect the blame from themselves?

    Gotta take responsibility for your own actions. It's the only way forward. Victimhood leaves you mired, immobilized, bitter, and useless.
    Very well said.
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tastypeppers
    On a much more civilized note, I have been seeing hints amongs the political commentariat that perhaps the Democrats may indeed have some difficulties winning in November, 2006 for a very prosaic reason: poor fundraising and poor "get out the vote" logistical organization. Blame has been laid at the feet of Howard Dean.

    This may be Republican spin.
    It is spin. Most polls indicate a change of crew my be afoot.

    This is just one of many articles popping up.

    Source: AP via CNN

    AP Poll: Republicans in danger of losing Congress

    Friday, July 14, 2006; Posted: 9:57 a.m. EDT (13:57 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republicans are in jeopardy of losing their grip on Congress in November.

    With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.

    Further complicating the GOP outlook to turn things around is a solid percentage of liberals, moderates and even conservatives who say they'll vote Democratic. The party out of power also holds the edge among persuadable voters, a prospect that doesn't bode well for the Republicans.
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions