World Politics

[auscyclefan94]

Funny. These last few pages are some of the few pages in this thread which ARENT about American politics

There are actually quite a few refernces to american politics through religion. but just being a regular poster in this thread confirms my original contention about american politics.

 

[Anonymous]

Funny. These last few pages are some of the few pages in this thread which ARENT about American politics




Yes and no. American politics is very very different to everywhere else. Not neccesarily mesed up. Depends on your interpretation. On some things it is superior, such as having the constitution promise free speech and religion.

Firstly the hype.

The political coverage is so lucrative, its like a sport. Millions of dollars in it.

Things like polls. the power it has. Other countries are now trying to copy this. Namely britain. the idea of using polls so much in politics. Only in America could you ruin a candidates career by publishing a poll. Look at the iowa caucuses. 5 days before the new hampshire primary Romney is up. Hes going to win New Hampshire, and bizzarely, because of that, hes going to win the candidacy. Then he loses the Iowa caucus. Essentially, a few thousand people borrowing an electoral system from ancient indian customs, narrowly give Mike Huckabee more electoral votes than Romney. Then the media comes out and says "Romney has lost the big mo", and people 2000 miles away in New Hampshire change their votes based on this

And as a result of that, the whole of America changes its votes. Everyone looks at Iowa and New Hampshire. Not just the Gop. Hillary had the nomination all sowed up until Iowa gave Obama the big mo. All of a sudden millions of people across america are now changing their votes. Why? In these days the candidates changed in absolutely no way. they were the same candidates.
because the media says one candidate has momentum.

And even more bizzarely, 3 months earlier Giullini was leading but a few polls put him down and he went from being presidential favourite to total no hoper.

Then theres the elction coverage. Its all here and now, looking for any scandal. I always thing theres something wrong with American elections where the networks " call " a state for a candidate, after 2% of the votes have been counted.
The networks actually pay millions and millions and millions to send pollsters into key precincts, conduct interviews, then send this info to experts and historians, who use it, together with looking at historical electoral patterns, all so that the network will be able to say "ABC projects that Pennsylvania will go to the republicans". Is it really so important to know which way a state voted 5 hours before the official results?

On the + side the huge media hype, does possibly increase voter participation. 60% may seem low but its higher than many countries. Unfortunately many of these people

Caucuses is another thing messed up with american politics. I know its rare but its SOO undemocratic.

Secondly the depth of ideology in americas

This is the biggest problem. That America, a country of 300 million people, so diverse and important, a country with every race, every religion, every political ideolofy, has a total 2 party system. Total. And hence you have the gop being forced to play for the far right and the centre. the Democrats playing for the far left and the centre. In essence you have about 100 different parties merged into 2. And as a result candidates have to lie. Theres no other option. You have to tell 1 wing that you oppose abortion, and another that your open about it. You have

its not just the electoral system which makes it such, its just the way it has played over history. Now you have a country of 300 million very very different people, far right and far left, being essentially played for by 2 organisations.

As a result you have so so so so so much hate. and as a result of that people blind themseles COMPLETELY to opposite views. I have seen it time and time again. Why is it that the worst demagogues possible are so populat in America. The People like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Micahel Moore, Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh, Janeane Garofalo, Anne Coulter etc etc. I was not remotely surprised that michael moore and sean hannity are very close friends. I bet they meet up often and laugh out loud for hours at how they can get away with it.


Because people are grouped into Liberals (not really liberals, just what they are called) and Conservatives. The liberals look at the conservatives, see them as a opposite ideology, see them very often as more stupid (when i used to watch Bill Maher, he justified half his arguments by simply saying, oh look, the republicans in mississipi are evangelicals. Therefore we must be right on everything). As a result, they refuse to take into account

The conservatives the same. The conservatives see being "liberal" ie open minded as a dirty word. Everything and any argument against their position will be met with

Of course there are millions of people in between the 2 versions of liberal and conservative that i have depicted and im sure many of you fit in there. But the more extreme conservatives are the ones who have the radio shows, fox news, and who get coverage for attending protests, work behind the scenes in elections, have interest groups, vote in higher numbers. Similarly the more extreme liberals are the ones who have hollywood and all the other cable news channels work behind the scenes in elections, have interest groups, vote in higher numbers.

Fantastic analysis. I find that people here also vote based on particular social issues and because understanding complex economic issues takes more time and effort, just accept the economic philosophy of the people with whom they agree on social issues. It is ignorance that is spread across the political spectrum. I watched a hilarious video of people at the Rally to Restore Sanity (which I attended) in which a person was holding a sign that said "Obama is a Keynesian" and people were up in arms about the fact that he was born in Hawaii. Conversely, there are videos from Beck's rally that make me fear for the children of the people interviewed.

Sometimes I really do want to just leave this country. I know ignorance knows no borders, but the ignorance displayed by the majority of my fellow Americans is sincerely frightening.

 

[rhubroma]

I'll leave a quarter on the coffee table for the psychoanalysis.

Anyway, if I need a lecture on justice, I will consult someone else. Thanks though.

You chose to ignore my point at every opportunity, and instead engage in a diatribe devoid of content relating to my original premise, that being that blaming religion for slaughter is to ignore that slaughter would have happened in the absence of religion, thereby leading anyone actually looking at the subject to determine that the current atheist bent on continually placing the blame for atrocity at the feet of religion as being misplaced in the larger context of human motivation for action. Sorry, but you chose to continue to hammer a point that had nothing to do with what I was talking about. (and on several instances severely overstated your point) You also engage in those things you obviously fault me for, and I can only hope that you read your own words with an eye to those things about yourself you might not want to acknowledge.

Past that, I generally have no problem with you. I agree with much of what you say. On the subject of religion, I very much believe that your bias has caused you to pursue theories that validate that underlying narrative to the exclusion that quite possibly, your focus is too narrowly construed.

And the comment about teachers was just me being a d!ck. I was a teacher.

Toodles!

You have very poor memory. You'll need to work on it. No the original discussion between us, if you can't recall I'll remind you, was my response to some quite inane and nonsensical drivel you stated about an "atheists agenda."

I simply communicated to you that if there was ever, historically, an agenda at work in the public domain, and of course among the political class, it has come from the religious block. You then seemed to continue with your illusions about the role that religion has played in civilization - as you still do above ad infinitum which is really getting so boring, for which I provided a rather cursory (as any forum of this type can only permit) overview of the forces that have been at work in this regard. To this you never provided anything of worth in the way of a response to what I was addressing, evidently either because of your own agenda or because of your complete ignorance of what had been brought up.

Even this wasn't satisfactory to you and so you tried to deflect all attention away from the points I had directed to you, with ad homenim arguments, and by adding stupid non consequential points. Such as this whole business about whether or not man would have commited atrocities in the absence of religion, which had never been connected to my arguments or what I said, which were rather about the atrociteis commited in the name of religion, of which there have been countless throughout the historical record. To not engage in the real issues brought up, you looked for a rather slimy way out and persued that slimy way with utmost zeal, while only appearing more ridiculous the further you went down that road. This has allowed me to realize that you will be perfectly fit for your career, as you know what they say, talk is cheap among the legal pundits and it's all a word game to them. Distorting reality and promoting fallacy will probably pay you well down the road, but it won't get you anywhere with me. Having acted in a childish manner, TFF, I have been compelled to give you a lesson.

In the private sphere religion, which doesn't of course regard me as a non-believer, has worth to you I'm sure and that's fine. But in the public domain, for all the reasons I mentioned, religion has, and continues to be, an utter disaster. Marx was quite right about that.

PS: I prefer the term rationalist over atheist, which is charged with polemic before the faithful against whom in principle I have nothing, or at the very least the rather inoquous non-believer.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Fantastic analysis. I find that people here also vote based on particular social issues and because understanding complex economic issues takes more time and effort, just accept the economic philosophy of the people with whom they agree on social issues. It is ignorance that is spread across the political spectrum. I watched a hilarious video of people at the Rally to Restore Sanity (which I attended) in which a person was holding a sign that said "Obama is a Keynesian" and people were up in arms about the fact that he was born in Hawaii. Conversely, there are videos from Beck's rally that make me fear for the children of the people interviewed.

Sometimes I really do want to just leave this country. I know ignorance knows no borders, but the ignorance displayed by the majority of my fellow Americans is sincerely frightening.

It's not very often you'll find me agreeing with ACF94, but there does seem something particularly screwed about American politics. Maybe it's simply the scale of it. Maybe it is the scale of the stupidity, or the scale of the influence of lobbyists, or the scale of funds required to run a campaign. I guess Hitch has touched on a lot of the causal factors. It's hard to see an improvement heading our way any time soon, and unfortunately the reach of US influence means that whatever happens there affects everyone in the world in one way or another.

In terms of the great experiment with democracy I sometimes think that if this is the best and brightest example then perhaps democracy has been a failure.

BTW, Hitch, I'm surprised to see you label Michael Moore and Janeane Garafalo as demagogues. Perhaps I'm out of the loop. Are they candidates for office?

Edit: I'm even more surprised by your use of the phrase "worst demagogues possible" to describe them. (I'll leave others to comment, or not, upon the other names you included in this descriptive bracket.)

 

[usedtobefast]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/35015

willful ignorance

 

[simo1733]

I don't
think there are any supporters of the far left in America.It is still illegal isn't it? There are just 2 political parties to choose from in America.
The Republicans: They are like the British conservative party. And
The Democrats:They are like the conservatives as well.

 

[Spare Tyre]

I don't
think there are any supporters of the far left in America.It is still illegal isn't it? There are just 2 political parties to choose from in America.
The Republicans: They are like the British conservative party. And
The Democrats:They are like the conservatives as well.

That is certainly my impression.

 

[Anonymous]

You have very poor memory. You'll need to work on it. No the original discussion between us, if you can't recall I'll remind you, was my response to some quite inane and nonsensical drivel you stated about an "atheists agenda."

Actually, the original comment you referred to was in relation to Hitchens having an "atheist agenda."(look it up) Hitchens has an atheist agenda. Maybe you don't know who he is or have incredibly poor reading skills? That or you are a ****ing moron completely devoid of logical understanding. I am not sure which anymore, but I am sure that you began at that point to respond with your own agenda that failed time and again to actually address the points I was raising. Fine, you think the points I was raising are childish and stupid, then respond to the actual points. You choose to respond to points with tangental ramblings that ignore the substantive point. You must have had really stupid professors if they allowed you to proceed in your writings in that manner. See, I haven't responded to your ramblings because I recognize bullsh!t when I see it, and you sir produce more bandwidth of bullsh!t than anyone I have ever encountered.

I simply communicated to you that if there was ever, historically, an agenda at work in the public domain, and of course among the political class, it has come from the religious block.

Really? That is your assessment of what you have written here? I guess, like the rest of us, you don't even read the drivel you post.

You then seemed to continue with your illusions about the role that religion has played in civilization - as you still do above ad infinitum which is really getting so boring, for which I provided a rather cursory (as any forum of this type can only permit) overview of the forces that have been at work in this regard. To this you never provided anything of worth in the way of a response to what I was addressing, evidently either because of your own agenda or because of your complete ignorance of what had been brought up.

The list of errors in those writings started from the beginning. You still assert that people were not slaughtered for religious purposes until 380. To do that, you narrowly construe "religious war" to a fight between monotheistic religions killing to further the cause of their religion. That is convenient to your point, but its ****ing stupid in relation to actual historical record.

Even this wasn't satisfactory to you and so you tried to deflect all attention away from the points I had directed to you, with ad homenim

You didn't even understand the concept of "ad hominem" until I posted the definition for you. Hell, you can't even spell it.

arguments, and by adding stupid non consequential points. Such as this whole business about whether or not man would have commited atrocities in the absence of religion, which had never been connected to my arguments or what I said,

The point here is that I made a comment in regards to another poster's writings, and you jumped IN ON OUR DISCUSSION. I didn't engage you. You engaged me. So, if you believe jumping in on the discussion of two other people, and then steering it to your topic means I need to start to respond to the points you make, you must believe I think more of your writings than I do. I don't really care about the topics you present because you are a blowhard douchebag who needs to look up the word "brevity" (and hopefully get the spelling right too) and take it on as a core value.

which were rather about the atrociteis commited in the name of religion, of which there have been countless throughout the historical record.

Yes, yes there have. Many before 380... Hell, even the archaeological record has evidence.

To not engage in the real issues brought up, you looked for a rather slimy way out and persued that slimy way with utmost zeal, while only appearing more ridiculous the further you went down that road. This has allowed me to realize that you will be perfectly fit for your career, as you know what they say, talk is cheap among the legal pundits and it's all a word game to them. Distorting reality and promoting fallacy will probably pay you well down the road, but it won't get you anywhere with me. Having acted in a childish manner, TFF, I have been compelled to give you a lesson

I didn't engage in your points because they didn't relate to the discussion I was having with someone else, to wit you barged in and decided to try to steer me to a discussion I wasn't having, and wasn't interested in putting much effort into because I don't find you to be all that interesting as an academic because you write to prove to yourself how smart you are. I just don't find you all that insightful. Sorry to burst your bubble.

In the private sphere religion, which doesn't of course regard me as a non-believer, has worth to you I'm sure and that's fine. But in the public domain, for all the reasons I mentioned, religion has, and continues to be, an utter disaster. Marx was quite right about that.

Another non sequitur, imagine that...

PS: I prefer the term rationalist over atheist, which is charged with polemic before the faithful against whom in principle I have nothing, or at the very least the rather inoquous non-believer.

Noted...though I have to tell you that I wasn't asking you about that, nor do I really care all that much.

 

[Ferminal]

Fantastic analysis. I find that people here also vote based on particular social issues and because understanding complex economic issues takes more time and effort, just accept the economic philosophy of the people with whom they agree on social issues. It is ignorance that is spread across the political spectrum. I watched a hilarious video of people at the Rally to Restore Sanity (which I attended) in which a person was holding a sign that said "Obama is a Keynesian" and people were up in arms about the fact that he was born in Hawaii. Conversely, there are videos from Beck's rally that make me fear for the children of the people interviewed.

Sometimes I really do want to just leave this country. I know ignorance knows no borders, but the ignorance displayed by the majority of my fellow Americans is sincerely frightening.

As was G. W. for the most part...

 

[The Hitch]

BTW, Hitch, I'm surprised to see you label Michael Moore and Janeane Garafalo as demagogues. Perhaps I'm out of the loop. Are they candidates for office?

Edit: I'm even more surprised by your use of the phrase "worst demagogues possible" to describe them. (I'll leave others to comment, or not, upon the other names you included in this descriptive bracket.)

Michael Moore and Janeane Garafolo arent candidates. But neither is Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck or any of the other people i named. Seeing as you understand why i call the others demagogues, ill explain why Moore and garofolo definately fit in.

Why Michael Moore is a demagogue isnt hard to understand. His films use the same cheapest. He edits footage and audio in such a way as to reverse the meaning. For example, he wants to target a speech which is mild. So he cuts out paragraphs, splices the beginning of one sentence to the end of a completely different sentence. Or he takes a "letter to the editor" from the new york times "letters to editors" section, enlarges it, and claims it was an article. Uses camera tricks to make it look like targets are refusing to answer his questions. Or outright lies, a lot. Like taking papers, erasing certain sections, then showing the erased bits to the camera and concluding the target must be hiding something.

Absolutely pathetic.

Here is a list of 50 such tricks from just one of his flims - http://www.davekopel.com/terror/fiftysix-deceits-in-fahrenheit-911.htm Its from a liberal btw. You dont need to be of any particular political stripe to see just how twisted his cheap little tricks are.

As for Jeanne Garafolo, she is responsible for a lot of stupid and divisive comments. She said the tea party was entirely motivated by racial hated towards obama (obviously im about as incompatible as one can get to the tea party, but there is so much wrong with making claims that an entire ideology must be racist, because the president is black). She downplayed the roll of religion in terrorist attacks, (before being informed that most terrorist attacks are muslim on muslim in arab countries) and questioned what the problem with bin laden having a nuke was if America has one . And worst of all i remember her strongly defending the right of Moore to lie by reasoning that " The republicans lie so its all right". As a person strongly opposed to both the extreme left and extreme right in America, this sums up EVERYTHING wrong with the poralisation in America. She is essentially saying, as do the conservatives i named, that because you hate a few wackos on the far right, it is all right to lie to and to cheat and decieve the millions of people in the centre. With this logic, there is absolutely no wonder America is SO divided.

Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth might work when its 1 on 1. But when theres 50 million peopl in between you and your opponent, everyone is going to lose, and i think its selfish to procceed anyway.

Not to mention that all these people and more claimed that Bush stole the 2004 election. This is another Michael Moore gem. He came out and claimed to have evidence that Bush rigged a few voting machines in Ohio. then on election night Susan Sarrandon said she couldnt accept the results because she knew it was rigged. The funny thing is the republicans lost the areas which they are alleged to have rigged. Of course all enquiries, analysis,independent sources, voter studies, and democrats, said that there was absolutely no evidence for such a claim. But it doesnt stop Michael Moore and his merry little band claiming that they know something no one else does.

And you wont be surprised to hear Coulter conservatives made similar claims in 08. It was a bit more difficult because Obama won in a landslide so they changed that to "Obama wasnt born in America".

These conspiracy theories are ridiculous.


There are hundreds more such people out there. People behind Commentary magazine. People behind such websites as moveon.org and dailykos. Rush Limbaugh obviously. Then theres the Actors, singers sports stars, anyone with any celebrity. The moderate ones can control themselves. The more partisan ones just cant help themselves. Sean Penn couldnt resist coming out and saying that Journalists who call Hugo Chávez a dictator should be jailed. Im not one of the people who calls Chavez a dictator (though he is going a bit loco no doubt.. But Penn was 100% serious when he said that and i definately consider it sufficient to add him to the list. Similarly, Chuck Norris couldnt help to try to use up any credibility that may have been left over from the 70's to back Mike Huckabee. Thats the Mike Huckabee who became governor of Arkansas and presidential candidate by writing a book about how he lost weight, playing guitar at rallies, and responding to questions about evolution with " I dont believe we are descended from monkeys". Huckabee now hosts a show on Fox news of course.

Point is, im not naming politicians, im naming media personalities. You are unlikely to find many people in congress who tell you that the 04 election was rigged or that Obama lied about his birth certificate. You are far more likely to find these guys out on the radio and the internet

The tea party did come up with some wackos this time round no doubt, but only Ayn Rand, I.. I mean Rand Paul got elected. Christine "the witch" O donnell is now long forgotten. How funny that her last contribution to american politics was an acceptance speech (despite the fact she had lost)

 

[The Hitch]

I find that people here also vote based on particular social issues and because understanding complex economic issues takes more time and effort, just accept the economic philosophy of the people with whom they agree on social issues

This is probably the best explenation. People dont understand economics so if your a "conservative" and see "liberal" as a dirty word, your likely to take the view, since your fellow conservatives" say it, that less government intervention is needed in economics.

I don't
think there are any supporters of the far left in America.It is still illegal isn't it? There are just 2 political parties to choose from in America.
The Republicans: They are like the British conservative party. And
The Democrats:They are like the conservatives as well.

The republicans are probably further to the right than the British conservatives. Cameron would be known as a RINO by certain parts of the GOP.

But there is a left in America. They call themselves progressives (socialism is still a bit of a dirty word), and they are very similar to social democrats in europe. They just represent a wing of the Democrats. Unless your talking about Communists, in which case they dont really exist anywhere anymore (apart from universities of course).

Also bear in mind that America doesnt have far right nazi parties.

In UK the BNP (which wants to slowly export all balck and asian people back to "where they came from" ) usually comes 4th or 5th in national elections, despite being handicapped by the media. Theyve won seats in the European Parliament. And have had shares of the vote as high as 15% in some elections.

In France Founder of he NAtional front , Jean MArie Le Penn came 2nd in the 2002 presidential election, getting 25% of the vote in the run off. THis is a very antisemitic and racist character, who has found himself in prison several times.

In Russia the ironically named Liberal Democratic Party of Russia is actually a far right nationalistic party which has had great success over the years.

Throughout europe you have antisemitic parties here and there.

On the other hand, you dont get popular parties in the US talking about "reclaiming America for the white man". The kkk could never dream of getting 5% yet alone 25% of the vote.

 

[buckwheat]

American politics...

On Meet the Press right now we have

Newt Gingrich, a clown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw&feature=&p=870462C1FE7273CB&index=0&playnext=1

On one hand, Gingrich is talking about computer transactions, on the other hand he's talking about human rights.

Alan Greenspan, discredited.

Bethany McLean, author of a book about the financial collapse, haven't read it.

Harold Ford, a supposed Democrat, a parasite who is always checking which way the wind blows for his political and financial survival.

Moderated by David Gregory, probably not a bad guy but he's a millionaire, not a neutral arbiter, and heavily invested in what tax rates are. He can't speak in a detached manner about it.

I think TFF is on the correct trail in how people are persuaded by social issues and then go along for the ride on the economic ones.

 

[Cobblestones]

Throughout europe you have antisemitic parties here and there.

On the other hand, you dont get popular parties in the US talking about "reclaiming America for the white man". The kkk could never dream of getting 5% yet alone 25% of the vote.

I think your analysis is not precise here. The US have only two political parties because of the election system not because of a lack of antisemitic or racist bigots.

Change the election system to some kind of proportional system and you might very well get an antisemitic and racist fringe party.

The thing is, because of the election system, both parties have to work very hard to reign in their fringes. A lot of elections are decided by a few percent of the votes. If you don't pander to your fringe, you'll lose their votes (by them staying at home) and you'll lose the seat/state. The tea party, which could have become an actual third party, was immediately absorbed by the Republicans for this precise reason. Even as a small separate party (we're talking here about a few % of the total vote), they would have ensured Democratic victory in the midterms by splitting the vote on the right.

ETA: and +1 to the post above me.

TFF is correct. Political strategists often identify one or few wedge issues which are easy to explain and which serve to promote party identification. There's a few long lived ones such as gun rights (mostly on the right), abortion (works for both sides) etc. Voters are supposed to agree with candidates on those, simple issues, and then trust that candidate with more complicated issues such as economic policies, foreign politics etc. It's not even a new concept. Has been around for decades. In 2004, it was mostly the gay marriage ban which worked very well to get Bush reelected. The fun thing is that most often, these issues serve as a vehicle for large political donors to get economic policies through by the mechanism described here. And it often works the direction TFF indicates. Party identification on social issues backed by donors with interests in economic policies. The tea party is a short cut in the sense that the wedge issue has become 'big government' which includes tax rates directly. The detour where party identification happens on social issues is no longer needed.

 

[The Hitch]

I think your analysis is not precise here. The US have only two political parties because of the election system not because of a lack of antisemitic or racist bigots.

Change the election system to some kind of proportional system and you might very well get an antisemitic and racist fringe party.

The thing is, because of the election system, both parties have to work very hard to reign in their fringes. A lot of elections are decided by a few percent of the votes. If you don't pander to your fringe, you'll lose their votes (by them staying at home) and you'll lose the seat/state. The tea party, which could have become an actual third party, was immediately absorbed by the Republicans for this precise reason. Even as a small separate party (we're talking here about a few % of the total vote), they would have ensured Democratic victory in the midterms by splitting the vote on the right.

Your right. The US 2 party thing does play its part.

You do however get people standing as independent and write in. Its allowed. You look at individual elections you often find fringe parties and write in candidates. In Florida 2000 there were about 8 guys who got a number of votes higher than the 600 vote gap between Bush and Gore.

This is essentially what the British National Party does. Britain has similar first past the post systems to America. It has a 2/3 party system. The BNP have no chance at winning elections. They exist solely to get small % of the vote. and are succesful.

Doesnt America have similar parties (as in parties with no hope of winning, who exist only to get a small % of te vote). The reform party or something. The Liberiterian party. Naeder keeps running for some party or other.

 

[redtreviso]

Michael Moore and Janeane Garafolo arent candidates. But neither is Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck or any of the other people i named. Seeing as you understand why i call the others demagogues, ill explain why Moore and garofolo definately fit in.

Why Michael Moore is a demagogue isnt hard to understand. His films use the same cheapest. He edits footage and audio in such a way as to reverse the meaning. For example, he wants to target a speech which is mild. So he cuts out paragraphs, splices the beginning of one sentence to the end of a completely different sentence. Or he takes a "letter to the editor" from the new york times "letters to editors" section, enlarges it, and claims it was an article. Uses camera tricks to make it look like targets are refusing to answer his questions. Or outright lies, a lot. Like taking papers, erasing certain sections, then showing the erased bits to the camera and concluding the target must be hiding something.

Absolutely pathetic.

Here is a list of 50 such tricks from just one of his flims - http://www.davekopel.com/terror/fiftysix-deceits-in-fahrenheit-911.htm Its from a liberal btw. You dont need to be of any particular political stripe to see just how twisted his cheap little tricks are.

As for Jeanne Garafolo, she is responsible for a lot of stupid and divisive comments. She said the tea party was entirely motivated by racial hated towards obama (obviously im about as incompatible as one can get to the tea party, but there is so much wrong with making claims that an entire ideology must be racist, because the president is black). She downplayed the roll of religion in terrorist attacks, (before being informed that most terrorist attacks are muslim on muslim in arab countries) and questioned what the problem with bin laden having a nuke was if America has one . And worst of all i remember her strongly defending the right of Moore to lie by reasoning that " The republicans lie so its all right". As a person strongly opposed to both the extreme left and extreme right in America, this sums up EVERYTHING wrong with the poralisation in America. She is essentially saying, as do the conservatives i named, that because you hate a few wackos on the far right, it is all right to lie to and to cheat and decieve the millions of people in the centre. With this logic, there is absolutely no wonder America is SO divided.

Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth might work when its 1 on 1. But when theres 50 million peopl in between you and your opponent, everyone is going to lose, and i think its selfish to procceed anyway.

Not to mention that all these people and more claimed that Bush stole the 2004 election. This is another Michael Moore gem. He came out and claimed to have evidence that Bush rigged a few voting machines in Ohio. then on election night Susan Sarrandon said she couldnt accept the results because she knew it was rigged. The funny thing is the republicans lost the areas which they are alleged to have rigged. Of course all enquiries, analysis,independent sources, voter studies, and democrats, said that there was absolutely no evidence for such a claim. But it doesnt stop Michael Moore and his merry little band claiming that they know something no one else does.

And you wont be surprised to hear Coulter conservatives made similar claims in 08. It was a bit more difficult because Obama won in a landslide so they changed that to "Obama wasnt born in America".

These conspiracy theories are ridiculous.


There are hundreds more such people out there. People behind Commentary magazine. People behind such websites as moveon.org and dailykos. Rush Limbaugh obviously. Then theres the Actors, singers sports stars, anyone with any celebrity. The moderate ones can control themselves. The more partisan ones just cant help themselves. Sean Penn couldnt resist coming out and saying that Journalists who call Hugo Chávez a dictator should be jailed. Im not one of the people who calls Chavez a dictator (though he is going a bit loco no doubt.. But Penn was 100% serious when he said that and i definately consider it sufficient to add him to the list. Similarly, Chuck Norris couldnt help to try to use up any credibility that may have been left over from the 70's to back Mike Huckabee. Thats the Mike Huckabee who became governor of Arkansas and presidential candidate by writing a book about how he lost weight, playing guitar at rallies, and responding to questions about evolution with " I dont believe we are descended from monkeys". Huckabee now hosts a show on Fox news of course.

Point is, im not naming politicians, im naming media personalities. You are unlikely to find many people in congress who tell you that the 04 election was rigged or that Obama lied about his birth certificate. You are far more likely to find these guys out on the radio and the internet

The tea party did come up with some wackos this time round no doubt, but only Ayn Rand, I.. I mean Rand Paul got elected. Christine "the witch" O donnell is now long forgotten. How funny that her last contribution to american politics was an acceptance speech (despite the fact she had lost)

Michael Moore and Janeane Garafalo are rarely on tv..Hannity Rush Coulter etc are on every day..Hannity radio and tv daily..Rush Daily..Their viewers, listeners avoid anything else.. There is no comparison of the penetration of these people compared to anyone liberal..Somewhat normal people who do not listen to rush or watch fox still pick up their mantra by osmosis almost as if they were just raised to think that way.

 

[The Hitch]

Michael Moore and Janeane Garafalo are rarely on tv..Hannity Rush Coulter etc are on every day..Hannity radio and tv daily..Rush Daily..Their viewers, listeners avoid anything else.. There is no comparison of the penetration of these people compared to anyone liberal..Somewhat normal people who do not listen to rush or watch fox still pick up their mantra by osmosis almost as if they were just raised to think that way.

It should be taken into account that many democrats want to see Glenn Beck and Hannity on tv as much as Conservatives do. They know that a significant % of America, whenever they see Beck on tv, are immediately motivated to go vote Democrat. Everytime people who do not listen to the Rush Limbaugh show, hear on the media some of the controversial comments he makes, it doesnt neccesarily help the republicans.

Obama even at one point tried to paint Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the republican party.

The left wing of the democrat party does however have its outposts too. Maybe not on the radio but they have a bigger presence n the web- Moveon.org, Dailykos, Hufpo.

 

[redtreviso]

It should be taken into account that many democrats want to see Glenn Beck and Hannity on tv as much as Conservatives do. They know that a significant % of America, whenever they see Beck on tv, are immediately motivated to go vote Democrat. Everytime people who do not listen to the Rush Limbaugh show, hear on the media some of the controversial comments he makes, it doesnt neccesarily help the republicans.

Obama even at one point tried to paint Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the republican party.

The left wing of the democrat party does however have its outposts too. Maybe not on the radio but they have a bigger presence n the web- Moveon.org, Dailykos, Hufpo.

That's ridiculous..kos moveon and huffpo aren't even a burp compared to Rush's radio network and foxnews..(and there is no left) Plus there are hundreds of rush wannabees on radio who run with whatever rush says...Rush IS the leader of the republican party..If Republicans differ with him they have to apologize. I wish it was true that democrats want to have glenn beck, rush on to show how nuts they are, but it doesn't turn americans away..The stupider the better is the rule. Drunks, idiots and halfwits define conservatism.

 

[redtreviso]

Police protecting Republicans in Arizona..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5GMaDOIm3c

 

[Cobblestones]

You do however get people standing as independent and write in. Its allowed.

That does only work when name recognition helps you. This midterm, there was one successful write-in campaign (Murkowski, Alaska). It's only the second time at all this worked. Likely because (i) Murkowski was the incumbent and had the name recognition, (ii) the Republican who won the primary was a terrible candidate with several scandals, and (iii) Alaska is very, very Republican, so even splitting the vote on the right didn't help the Democrat.

The other campaign was Charlie Christ in Florida who lost the Republican primary and went independent (which is only allowed in some states, many others have a 'sore loser' provision against this). Christ was the governor and therefore had won a statewide race in the past. Strangely, it seemed that Christ split the Democratic vote, not the Republican. The Democratic guy was a black dude (just saying) and there were some shenanigans about him dropping out of the race in favor of Christ.

There's a few independents in the Senate. One is Lieberman who lost the Democratic primary and then was heavily backed by the Republicans (although he votes with the Democrats in the Senate more often than not). Also, he had great name recognition since he was VP candidate of Gore. Finally there's Sanders from VT who, I think, calls himself a socialist, but votes with the Democrats. He's been around for quite some time. I don't know whether Democrats have their own candidates in VT when Sanders is in the race.

There's no third party of any consequence. Some office holders are labeled 'independent', but because of Senate rules, at least the Senate independents have to latch on to a party if they want to play any role in the committees and the legislative process.

 

[The Hitch]

That does only work when name recognition helps you. This midterm, there was one successful write-in campaign (Murkowski, Alaska). It's only the second time at all this worked. Likely because (i) Murkowski was the incumbent and had the name recognition, (ii) the Republican who won the primary was a terrible candidate with several scandals, and (iii) Alaska is very, very Republican, so even splitting the vote on the right didn't help the Democrat.

The other campaign was Charlie Christ in Florida who lost the Republican primary and went independent (which is only allowed in some states, many others have a 'sore loser' provision against this). Christ was the governor and therefore had won a statewide race in the past. Strangely, it seemed that Christ split the Democratic vote, not the Republican. The Democratic guy was a black dude (just saying) and there were some shenanigans about him dropping out of the race in favor of Christ.

There's a few independents in the Senate. One is Lieberman who lost the Democratic primary and then was heavily backed by the Republicans (although he votes with the Democrats in the Senate more often than not). Also, he had great name recognition since he was VP candidate of Gore. Finally there's Sanders from VT who, I think, calls himself a socialist, but votes with the Democrats. He's been around for quite some time. I don't know whether Democrats have their own candidates in VT when Sanders is in the race.

There's no third party of any consequence. Some office holders are labeled 'independent', but because of Senate rules, at least the Senate independents have to latch on to a party if they want to play any role in the committees and the legislative process.

I know of all these cases. The point is, you CAN run as an independent or write in. It doesnt have to be succesful. In fact its not supposed to. The cases you name, all had relative success

All your examples are either democrats or republicans who move one way or the other. But my point is of candidates running as independents. A better example here would be of Jesse Ventura who is neither a republican nor a democrat but won the Minnesota governorship in 2000 i think. He shows its possible to run as an independent, even if 99.9999999% of the time the 2 parties will find a way to break you/ consume you.

 

[buckwheat]

Michael Moore and Janeane Garafolo arent candidates. But neither is Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck or any of the other people i named. Seeing as you understand why i call the others demagogues, ill explain why Moore and garofolo definately fit in.

Why Michael Moore is a demagogue isnt hard to understand. His films use the same cheapest. He edits footage and audio in such a way as to reverse the meaning. For example, he wants to target a speech which is mild. So he cuts out paragraphs, splices the beginning of one sentence to the end of a completely different sentence. Or he takes a "letter to the editor" from the new york times "letters to editors" section, enlarges it, and claims it was an article. Uses camera tricks to make it look like targets are refusing to answer his questions. Or outright lies, a lot. Like taking papers, erasing certain sections, then showing the erased bits to the camera and concluding the target must be hiding something.

Absolutely pathetic.

Here is a list of 50 such tricks from just one of his flims - http://www.davekopel.com/terror/fiftysix-deceits-in-fahrenheit-911.htm Its from a liberal btw. You dont need to be of any particular political stripe to see just how twisted his cheap little tricks are.

As for Jeanne Garafolo, she is responsible for a lot of stupid and divisive comments. She said the tea party was entirely motivated by racial hated towards obama (obviously im about as incompatible as one can get to the tea party, but there is so much wrong with making claims that an entire ideology must be racist, because the president is black). She downplayed the roll of religion in terrorist attacks, (before being informed that most terrorist attacks are muslim on muslim in arab countries) and questioned what the problem with bin laden having a nuke was if America has one . And worst of all i remember her strongly defending the right of Moore to lie by reasoning that " The republicans lie so its all right". As a person strongly opposed to both the extreme left and extreme right in America, this sums up EVERYTHING wrong with the poralisation in America. She is essentially saying, as do the conservatives i named, that because you hate a few wackos on the far right, it is all right to lie to and to cheat and decieve the millions of people in the centre. With this logic, there is absolutely no wonder America is SO divided.

Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth might work when its 1 on 1. But when theres 50 million peopl in between you and your opponent, everyone is going to lose, and i think its selfish to procceed anyway.

Not to mention that all these people and more claimed that Bush stole the 2004 election. This is another Michael Moore gem. He came out and claimed to have evidence that Bush rigged a few voting machines in Ohio. then on election night Susan Sarrandon said she couldnt accept the results because she knew it was rigged. The funny thing is the republicans lost the areas which they are alleged to have rigged. Of course all enquiries, analysis,independent sources, voter studies, and democrats, said that there was absolutely no evidence for such a claim. But it doesnt stop Michael Moore and his merry little band claiming that they know something no one else does.

And you wont be surprised to hear Coulter conservatives made similar claims in 08. It was a bit more difficult because Obama won in a landslide so they changed that to "Obama wasnt born in America".

These conspiracy theories are ridiculous.


There are hundreds more such people out there. People behind Commentary magazine. People behind such websites as moveon.org and dailykos. Rush Limbaugh obviously. Then theres the Actors, singers sports stars, anyone with any celebrity. The moderate ones can control themselves. The more partisan ones just cant help themselves. Sean Penn couldnt resist coming out and saying that Journalists who call Hugo Chávez a dictator should be jailed. Im not one of the people who calls Chavez a dictator (though he is going a bit loco no doubt.. But Penn was 100% serious when he said that and i definately consider it sufficient to add him to the list. Similarly, Chuck Norris couldnt help to try to use up any credibility that may have been left over from the 70's to back Mike Huckabee. Thats the Mike Huckabee who became governor of Arkansas and presidential candidate by writing a book about how he lost weight, playing guitar at rallies, and responding to questions about evolution with " I dont believe we are descended from monkeys". Huckabee now hosts a show on Fox news of course.

Point is, im not naming politicians, im naming media personalities. You are unlikely to find many people in congress who tell you that the 04 election was rigged or that Obama lied about his birth certificate. You are far more likely to find these guys out on the radio and the internet

The tea party did come up with some wackos this time round no doubt, but only Ayn Rand, I.. I mean Rand Paul got elected. Christine "the witch" O donnell is now long forgotten. How funny that her last contribution to american politics was an acceptance speech (despite the fact she had lost)

Fahrenheit 9/11 could have been even more powerful.

I read a part of some of that nonsense you posted about Moore.

The Wolfowitz deceit part was laughable as was Bush winning the 2000 election. Read Bush v. Gore. Any reading by anyone with an ounce of logic and who understands how the SCOTUS operates and how the right wing idealogues operate, know it's a fraudulent decision.

Deceits 42 and 43 are idiotic. There was no al Qaeda/Sadaam connection. What crap, you're kidding right?

Please, stop!!!!

 

[The Hitch]

Fahrenheit 9/11 could have been even more powerful.

I read a part of some of that nonsense you posted about Moore.


Deceits 42 and 43 are idiotic. There was no al Qaeda/Sadaam connection. What crap, you're kidding right?

Please, stop!!!!

What makes the article i posted nonesence?

You say deciets 42 and 43 are idiotic. Franly i dont care if they are. Theres still deceits 1- 42? Or 44- 59. . The author of the article might be a liar too but that isnt really important because this is about Moore being a liar.

Hence you can dismiss as many as you want, if even one of those deciets is true id say he has disgraced himself.

And thank you for indulging me. Now i can look at a few deceits myself and post them here. Lets see if you can give a responce, or if you will just dismiss them as nonesence as well.

For example deceit 1.

"The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"

This on its own is enough to disgrace the film. Look at the bit moore said again. " .All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'" He says that 1 of Bushes plans was to rigg the election by getting Fox news to call it for him This lie is immediately exposed with the fact that Fox News was not the first network to call the election for Bush. Hence the whole conspiracy falls on its head.

In fact, Fox did not retract its claim that Gore had won Florida until 2 a.m.--four hours after other networks had withdrawn the call.

Conclusion - total lie.

Besides the idea is bizzare in the first place. Why would rival networks who spend their own money on independent polling and who have results in front of them call an election based on what Fox news said ???????

Deciet 3

Moore calls "Florida Secretary of State " Katherine Harris, the "vote count lady". You might notice something is up when he reduces an official position to "vote count lady" Quite a cheap jab actually.

Because in reality the "Florida Secretary of State" has absolutely no power in the counting of votes.

Vote counting in Florida is performed by the election commissioners in each of Florida's counties.

Another total lie. You going to dismiss that as nonesence?


These are just deceits 1 and 3.

You say anyone with an ounce of logic would agree with you. Id say anyone with an ounce of logic, will, when looking at what Moore says and does, and then presented with the fact, see that Moores film contains none stop lies and fabrications.

If you still think Moore is this great defender of the truth, i will be more than happy to go over lies 4 and 5 with you. If you want we can move away from election 2000 to other issues.

Or we can move to his other "films". Bowling for colombine was just as bad, (and i am someone very opposed to the NRA).

ah and what did you mean by please stop? Was it supposed to say "Please stop any attempt at discourse" ? Umm no thanks. Ball in your court. Do you still think its nonesence to say Moore was lying?

 

[Spare Tyre]

Michael Moore and Janeane Garafolo arent candidates. But neither is Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck or any of the other people i named. Seeing as you understand why i call the others demagogues, ill explain why Moore and garofolo definately fit in.

In my experience the term demagogue is usually applied to political leaders, or political candidates so nope, in that sense I don't understand why you called them demagogues. Aside from that, I'm more familiar with Moore and Garafalo (not very familiar, just more familiar). I'm really surprised that you could call Moore and Garafalo the "worst demagogues". Nothing worse is possible? Really? They don't seem that dangerous to me. What are they saying that is so dangerous? That corporate and political America acts to further its own interests rather than those of the people?

<snip>

[As a person strongly opposed to both the extreme left and extreme right in America, this sums up EVERYTHING wrong with the poralisation in America. She is essentially saying, as do the conservatives i named, that because you hate a few wackos on the far right, it is all right to lie to and to cheat and decieve the millions of people in the centre. With this logic, there is absolutely no wonder America is SO divided.

We might have some points of agreement here (kind of), although I'd put it differently:

I think the polarisation problem stems from the fact that everyone (or every media outlet or host or program) is equally entitled to an opinion but not all opinions are equally valid. (One of the problems with democracy and the use of the market/consumer choice as an organiser of society.) News these days is more "he said, she said" than anything verifiable. If people don't have the skills to ascertain the quality/veracity of their news sources, or don't recognise ideology even when it is hitting them on the head, then over time we get differences to the point where we effectively no longer live in the same world and can no longer conduct meaningful conversations across the breach, as the same terms are used with wildly discrepant meanings. It's post-modernist relativism, essentially.

Given most media is owned by wealthy conservatives, the advantage is to them when it comes to ideological use of the media and spin.

BTW, what is the "extreme left" in America, in your opinon? I thought it got exorcised in the 1950s.

<snip>

 

[The Hitch]

In my experience the term demagogue is usually applied to political leaders, or political candidates so nope, in that sense I don't understand why you called them demagogues. Aside from that, I'm more familiar with Moore and Garafalo (not very familiar, just more familiar). I'm really surprised that you could call Moore and Garafalo the "worst demagogues". Nothing worse is possible? Really? They don't seem that dangerous to me. What are they saying that is so dangerous? That corporate and political America acts to further its own interests rather than those of the people?

Your probably right. By that definition of demagogue no one on my list of shame qualifies. Perhaps i should have used a different word.

BTW, what is the "extreme left" in America, in your opinon? I thought it got exorcised in the 1950s.

In American politics a lot, the term "extreme left" is often used to describe the more left wing people. I meant the left wing of the democrat party. Yeah by our standards theyre not really extreme left.

We might have some points of agreement here (kind of), although I'd put it differently:

I think the polarisation problem stems from the fact that everyone (or every media outlet or host or program) is equally entitled to an opinion but not all opinions are equally valid. (One of the problems with democracy and the use of the market/consumer choice as an organiser of society.) News these days is more "he said, she said" than anything verifiable. If people don't have the skills to ascertain the quality/veracity of their news sources, or don't recognise ideology even when it is hitting them on the head, then over time we get differences to the point where we effectively no longer live in the same world and can no longer conduct meaningful conversations across the breach, as the same terms are used with wildly discrepant meanings. It's post-modernist relativism, essentially.

Given most media is owned by wealthy conservatives, the advantage is to them when it comes to ideological use of the media and spin.

Interesting take.

 

[buckwheat]

Your probably right. By that definition of demagogue no one on my list of shame qualifies. Perhaps i should have used a different word.




In American politics a lot, the term "extreme left" is often used to describe the more left wing people. I meant the left wing of the democrat party. Yeah by our standards theyre not really extreme left.


Interesting take.

Democratic Party.