Classic Bush

[Lurch]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106109/

I've been noticing this slant in Bushies speeches for a while - and by Bushies I mean mostly his sycophants but him as well. First, when the Spanish elected an anit-war government, Bush comes out with the 'America will not be bullied like this!'. Basically, saying if you vote me out, you are bowing down to terrorists. Then, one of the wing-nuts on talk radio took it one step further and suggested al Quaeda will be encouraged if the US votes out Bush. Now they take it the next step and make it party policy by suggesting it is undemocratic to criticize presidential decisions during a campaign. I know I'd be proud to vote for these guys :wacko:

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he's making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you're accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power—the very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush's critics.

Home run swing on that pitch, and he hit the mother right out of the park. Ouch.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Yeah, THAT article is written from an objective point of view.

[Crap-Bag]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Sep 2 2004, 04:38 PM
Yeah, THAT article is written from an objective point of view.

...

[Reaper]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Sep 2 2004, 05:38 PM
Yeah, THAT article is written from an objective point of view.

Call me crazy but aren't all points of view subjective?

I don't think there is such a thing as an objective point of view...

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Reaper+Sep 2 2004, 11:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Reaper @ Sep 2 2004, 11:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Sep 2 2004, 05:38 PM
Yeah, THAT article is written from an objective point of view.

Call me crazy but aren't all points of view subjective?

I don't think there is such a thing as an objective point of view... [/b][/quote]
Sure, all points of view are subjective. However, when someone is trying to use an article to support a point they've made about something and the article starts out with such ridiculously obvious bias, it kind of puts a damper on the effectiveness of their argument. At least in my mind.

[calf]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 2 2004, 06:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 2 2004, 06:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Call me crazy but aren't all points of view subjective?

I don't think there is such a thing as an objective point of view...

Sure, all points of view are subjective. However, when someone is trying to use an article to support a point they've made about something and the article starts out with such ridiculously obvious bias, it kind of puts a damper on the effectiveness of their argument. At least in my mind. [/b][/quote]
I don't think this is an article at all - calling it an article suggests it's news, which is supposed to be objective, when obviously that's not the point of the piece of writing.

I'd call it an opinion piece, so he's allowed to have whatever bias he wants.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by calf@Sep 3 2004, 12:49 AM

I don't think this is an article at all - calling it an article suggests it's news, which is supposed to be objective, when obviously that's not the point of the piece of writing.

I'd call it an opinion piece, so he's allowed to have whatever bias he wants.

Very true, and where exactly did I say he wasn't allowed to have that opinion? What I did say is that using this guys opinion to support something that you are floating as FACT is weak at best. Make sense now?

[calf]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 2 2004, 07:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 2 2004, 07:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-calf@Sep 3 2004, 12:49 AM

I don't think this is an article at all - calling it an article suggests it's news, which is supposed to be objective, when obviously that's not the point of the piece of writing.

I'd call it an opinion piece, so he's allowed to have whatever bias he wants.

Very true, and where exactly did I say he wasn't allowed to have that opinion? What I did say is that using this guys opinion to support something that you are floating as FACT is weak at best. Make sense now? [/b][/quote]
Makes sense, no doubt (esp. after re-reading your post...my bad)...but, I'm not floating anything around as fact.

It seemed to me that Lurch, the original poster, posted an op-ed piece he agreed with/liked, (I assume) posted it, and pointed out why he agreed with it/why he liked it...not "here's my opinion, and here's an objective article supporting it".

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by fotze@Sep 3 2004, 02:08 AM

Quit arguing here and help me out on the main board on the guy who said 'typical ignorant American'.

LMAO....that is damn tempting....I here it's movie time in my living room though.

Let 'em have it.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by calf+Sep 3 2004, 01:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calf @ Sep 3 2004, 01:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Very true, and where exactly did I say he wasn't allowed to have that opinion? What I did say is that using this guys opinion to support something that you are floating as FACT is weak at best. Make sense now?

Makes sense, no doubt (esp. after re-reading your post...my bad)...but, I'm not floating anything around as fact.

It seemed to me that Lurch, the original poster, posted an op-ed piece he agreed with/liked, (I assume) posted it, and pointed out why he agreed with it/why he liked it...not "here's my opinion, and here's an objective article supporting it". [/b][/quote]
I agree, Lurch was just explaining we he liked it, why it made sense to him.

Opinionated or not though, there are some facts within the article. The fact that no weapons were found in Iraq (the author even pulls the punch to keep it fair by saying non were found, not that there were never any which it seems more and more likely that was true) that 1000 American died to find out there were no weapons, the fact that the economy which was a surplus now has the biggest deficit in history, the fact that there are 1,000,000 new jobless during Bush's tenure as president. You can't say this is opinion, these are facts, supported by numbers.

I read about the 1,000,000 jobless just very recently on a CNN webpage. And because I know some people might accuse this of being leftist propaganda reporting I'll just say they had a link to a .gov site that showed the numbers. It's fact. Sorry, but it is, and so are the other points above.

Yes the article is slanted, but it's not purely an opinion piece.

The responses at the bottom of the are interesting too. The comparison of Cheney's record to what the Repubs are saying about Kerry was especially interesting to me.

I find it interesting how people can deny facts and get mad when someone points out something to them. Or at the very least, very defensive.

Not saying this as a endorsement for Kerry. I know he has his problems and hypocracies too. All politicians do. I just find it interesting when people get so defensive over opinions other have or even hard facts that can't be denied.

[Lurch]

Very true, that was an opinion piece. However, the main point in it is that the Republican party allowed their keynote speaker to suggest that by criticising the president and attempting to win an election, the Democrats were weakening the country and somehow dishonoring the soldiers in Iraq. This is fact - read the speech. If you don't think the Republican's ok'd and in fact helped write the speech in the first place, I would disagree strongly.

Whether or not you are a Bush supporter, I would think you would find it disturbing that anyone would hint that not supporting the president is somehow unpatriotic. Reeks of McCarthyism to me, but hey, that's just my opinion.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 3 2004, 02:25 PM
Very true, that was an opinion piece. However, the main point in it is that the Republican party allowed their keynote speaker to suggest that by criticising the president and attempting to win an election, the Democrats were weakening the country and somehow dishonoring the soldiers in Iraq. This is fact - read the speech. If you don't think the Republican's ok'd and in fact helped write the speech in the first place, I would disagree strongly.

Whether or not you are a Bush supporter, I would think you would find it disturbing that anyone would hint that not supporting the president is somehow unpatriotic. Reeks of McCarthyism to me, but hey, that's just my opinion.

If we were being fair, we would note that reaction from mainstream Republicans to the keynote speaker, Zell Miller, was his comments were "over-the-top," "embarrassing" and filled with "personal hate for John Kerry."

At least that's what I was hearing on the talk shows when I was in the USA earlier in the week. People were kind of rolling their eyes at his comments.

It seemed if they could turn back the clock they would have had him tone it down a bit.

Secondly, 9/11 blew a hole in the global economy, not just the USA economy. It would be interesting to see where USA employment would be today without that event having taken place.

Fodder for debate.

If you object that he's making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you're accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power

Sounds like the argument used by DEMOCRATS in the 1960's as the Protest Generation voiced its objections to troop levels in Vietnam being ratched up to 500,000 by Lyndon Johnson in a conflict that would eventually cost 50,000 American lives.

Its an old argument. Both sides are guilty of that charge.

Cowperson

[Lurch]

Two questions. First, do you believe the Republicans did not ok Miller's speech? That they let a Democrat be the keynote speaker without going through his speech line by line? The reaction in the press from Republicans simply reflects that it went over poorly. If there had been a rousing 'hell ya' you can bet they would not be making those same statements. Its pretty false to distance yourself from comments your party implicitly (more likely explicitly) endorsed after they go over poorly. Its called 'a trial balloon' IMO.

As for the Democrats in the '60's, I hope you recognize exactly how well their tactics worked. Nixon won one of the biggest landslides ever, America eventually got out of Vietnam and realized what a mistake they made. The Democrats got what they so richly deserved, and here is hoping the past repeats itself without the need to spend 50,000 US lives and another 5 years getting out of the current mess.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 3 2004, 01:52 PM
If we were being fair, we would note that reaction from mainstream Republicans to the keynote speaker, Zell Miller, was his comments were "over-the-top," "embarrassing" and filled with "personal hate for John Kerry."

At least that's what I was hearing on the talk shows when I was in the USA earlier in the week. People were kind of rolling their eyes at his comments.

It seemed if they could turn back the clock they would have had him tone it down a bit.

I don't think this was an Al Sharpton where he just went off script and riffed for 45 minutes. I guarantee his speech was known by convention organizers and party leaders long before Miller unleashed hell on national television. Zell was given the keynote address because he is a Democrat with personal hate for Kerry.

IMO, Republican efforts to distance themselves from Zell Miller's tirade are perfectly consistant with the way they addressed the Swift Boat attacks -- they let others do their dirty work and once the damage is done they then back away and try to appear innocent and contrite.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Mike F@Sep 3 2004, 09:30 PM
IMO, Republican efforts to distance themselves from Zell Miller's tirade are perfectly consistant with the way they addressed the Swift Boat attacks -- they let others do their dirty work and once the damage is done they then back away and try to appear innocent and contrite.

Good call. For the Republican party to say they had nothing to do with the Swift Boat commercials is sketchy at best and an outright lie at worst. Just getting a third party to do it so they have an out. The message still gets through to the voters who base their vote on TV commercials and not taking the time to figure out the issues for themselves. And there's tons of those.

[Cowperson]

Oh, I agree his speech was vetted somewhere in the misty regions up top. I'm not arguing that.

I'm just telling you the reaction from those who didn't vett it - the majority of people there - was they seemed fairly surprised he went as far as he did, at least judging by the accounts I saw. Was he really talking for the majority of the delegates there, the meat of the Republican party? It didn't seem to be the case.

That might go to the oft-repeated observation from critics that the Republicans want to be seen as a party of the moderate right but who actually have people running things on a platform that might not conform to that image.


As for the Democrats in the '60's, I hope you recognize exactly how well their tactics worked. Nixon won one of the biggest landslides ever, America eventually got out of Vietnam and realized what a mistake they made. The Democrats got what they so richly deserved, and here is hoping the past repeats itself without the need to spend 50,000 US lives and another 5 years getting out of the current mess.

You're assuming I was taking a point of view on the matter. I made an observation in the interests of fairness. And I hit a bullseye.

Is it any wonder that as you get older, you trust your politicians less?

Cowperson