This isn't patriotism

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

yes, i've seen that very link. but what, pray tell, connects mckinley to all of that? guilt by association? or are you saying the president is to blame for propaganda films? keep trying.

Charles, you've got to be kidding me. You're not that stupid, are you? Just admit you're wrong and we'll all move on. Or don't, I don't really care.

why is it you just can't answer that? or is it - you can't so you try to play it off on me? i'm wanting proof and so far all i've seen is you saying he did this, not any specifics!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Its always been so bizarre to me that the US is so polarised when it comes to politics - that a persons views can only be understood by first lumping them in one of two divergent groups, and using that as a means to pour scorn on them.

This stupid patriotism thing is also irritating - its clear from the the number of times its been trotted out on here that a fair few people associate "debate" with "Not wanting to play one the team". Misses the point entirely IMO, and continues to do so.

"We must win", "you're emboldening the enemy", "you should be with us or against us". None of those statements means anything substantive whatsoever. The guy who brought up 1984 is quite right to do so - Doublethink (Doublespeak in our case) is at work in our society, and has been for some time. Its as though if people repeat the rhetorical mantra enough times it must therefore be true.

But when for example, the President's press secretary comes out a couple of days before the President is due to give his 9/11 speech and says that the speech will be "non-partisan" in nature, then when you actually watch it and see that it is perhaps one of the most political and partisan things he has ever read, it makes me wonder whether people actually look at these things for themselves or just accept what they're told.

We're already in a position where the Iraq war is deemed legal merely because the President and his Attorney General say so, not because it actually is. The government knows (and actually counts on) the knowledge that people don't know the facts and don't have the time or energy to seek them out - so they can pretty much get away with murder.

If people really cared about how their government was run and took an active (as opposed to apathetic) approach to political issues - its a fair bet that noone in the cabinet, senate or congress would be elected. The old master-slave dynamic at work...

Well said. I believe that the polarity doesn't really exist when you really corner people on their opinions, but it is amplified and exaggerated by people such as radio talk show personalities whose popularity depends on dividing issues into one extreme position over another. It's titillating, it's exciting, it's the Jerry Springer Show in full bloom.

A lot of these positions then get mimicked in the blogosphere...people magically have definitive opinions about issues they know little about beyond what they've heard from O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity, or Limbaugh. People are encouraged to have an opinion about everything and that opinion must follow an allegiance towards those they most closely identify with.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well said. I believe that the polarity doesn't really exist when you really corner people on their opinions, but it is amplified and exaggerated by people such as radio talk show personalities whose popularity depends on dividing issues into one extreme position over another. It's titillating, it's exciting, it's the Jerry Springer Show in full bloom.

A lot of what this then gets mimicked in the blogosphere...people magically have definitive opinions about issues they know little about beyond what they've heard from O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity, or Limbaugh. People are encouraged to have an opinion about everything and that opinion must follow an allegiance towards those they most closely identify with.

Certainly those commentators are given more credit for authority than is actually warranted.

I see Bill O'Reilly for instance - has a slogan for his show, referring to it as the "no spin zone". Its nothing more than a label - Essentially its "The No Spin Zone^TM - because O'Reilly does spin. That's not to say I automatically disagree with him on every issue - but he has a very obvious bent to his commentaries. Its not unlike McDonalds saying to its customers that all of our burgers are made with "100% Prime Beef^TM - where 100% Prime Beef^TM is the name of a company and not a guarantee of a food quality.

Its all advertising and marketing - the actuality doesn't match the projection.

Edited January 10, 2007 by erekose

[keltic 1]

and i could just as easily (and at least with some grounds) take offense that you continue to insist that i was insinuating anything at all about bush while i said nothing of him in my question, in fact nothing in my question cited any historical precedence at all... i merely asked a question about one example of parameters... i could just as easily ask a question with regards to a president of a different ethnicity other than caucasian or a female president... still valid, even tho not historical as of yet... simply because anything is possible

im am rather intrigued with where your line is in your beliefs.... since you stated originally that during wartime we shouldnt question the president, i think its very interesting to know when that changes... when you answered my question "so, then, that means that as long as the president can manipulate the ppl and congress to declare war, then he is above any questioning?", you said "no"... so, if he isnt automatically above questioning just because he is president, where is the line that makes it unacceptable to question him? is it whether his beliefs fall in line with yours? is it what party he is associated with? you dont need to answer it really... just food for thought

personally, i feel that noone in the govt should be above questioning... where you cant hold behavior accountable is where you wind up with more and more power and, soon following, corruption... so, for me, i dont care what party, race, gender or any other parameter... if someone (president, governor, congressman, mayor, etc) does something that doesnt sit well, then i question it...

so you're gonna tell me still that your statement was not aimed at bush? oh please. i've seen that same tired line trotted out time and time again. the fact remains - it's untrue.

as for the supposed fact that mckinley did such, i''ve yet to see any evidence regarding that, just allegations.

in regards to your question about wartime and presidents, there are many different situations that could have a bearing on the question. in general i'd say yes, if there was a conspiracy to lead the nation to war, one probably has a point in raising questions. however, prudence is the key word when doing so.

we already have enough corruption in government anyways. i don't trust any of them 100%, some far less than others.

yes, i will maintain that my question was not a 'bushbash', rather a question directed at you for clarification of your beliefs... thats all it was... if i want to 'bash' bush, i would do so, quite open and frankly (and have done so elsewhere and probably will again)... and frankly, im sick of you calling me a liar, all the while i have made very clear that i have completely different intentions from what you accuse me of... if you had made the statement that 'a president is above question during wartime' back in the 90's, i would have asked the same question of what if said war was achieved thru lies... bush is only in office for 2 more years... political discussions will go on after he has left office... he is not the alpha and omega of presidents... i will continue to have questions about the powers and limitations of the presidency, no matter who is in office... if you dont believe me, fine... believe as you wish, but i think its poor taste to publicly accuse someone of lying without any ground to stand on... im sure it wouldnt sit well with you were the tables to be turned

argue all you want with someone who is asserting the argument about bush lying to the ppl of this country and congress... i dont care to argue that with you... its pointless for both of us and anyone trying to wade thru this thread

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well said. I believe that the polarity doesn't really exist when you really corner people on their opinions, but it is amplified and exaggerated by people such as radio talk show personalities whose popularity depends on dividing issues into one extreme position over another. It's titillating, it's exciting, it's the Jerry Springer Show in full bloom.

A lot of what this then gets mimicked in the blogosphere...people magically have definitive opinions about issues they know little about beyond what they've heard from O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity, or Limbaugh. People are encouraged to have an opinion about everything and that opinion must follow an allegiance towards those they most closely identify with.

Certainly those commentators are given more credit for authority than is actually warranted.

I see Bill O'Reilly for instance - has a slogan for his show, referring to it as the "no spin zone". Its nothing more than a label - Essentially its "The No Spin Zone^TM - because O'Reilly does spin. That's not to say I automatically disagree with him on every issue - but he has a very obvious bent to his commentaries. Its not unlike McDonalds saying to its customers that all of our burgers are made with "100% Prime Beef^TM - where 100% Prime Beef^TM is the name of a company and not a guarantee of a food quality.

Its all advertising and marketing - the actuality doesn't match the projection.

And if you watch closely, his show and many of the talk radio shows all follow a certain formula - make an issue out of something, have a definitive opinion about it, and ridicule any dissenting opinion that deviates from the position that the host takes. Some people love that sh!t the way they get riled up over an impassioned preacher's sermon. They love someone telling them like it is, and to feel the victor. It's a method that preys on their underlying fears and uncertainties - people who just can't make sense of this ever changing world - too much information, too many things going on - they want someone to guide them towards certainty and they find it comforting that there are such personalities such as Limbaugh and O'Reilly who indulge on such listener loyalty.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well said. I believe that the polarity doesn't really exist when you really corner people on their opinions, but it is amplified and exaggerated by people such as radio talk show personalities whose popularity depends on dividing issues into one extreme position over another. It's titillating, it's exciting, it's the Jerry Springer Show in full bloom.

A lot of what this then gets mimicked in the blogosphere...people magically have definitive opinions about issues they know little about beyond what they've heard from O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity, or Limbaugh. People are encouraged to have an opinion about everything and that opinion must follow an allegiance towards those they most closely identify with.

Certainly those commentators are given more credit for authority than is actually warranted.

I see Bill O'Reilly for instance - has a slogan for his show, referring to it as the "no spin zone". Its nothing more than a label - Essentially its "The No Spin Zone^TM - because O'Reilly does spin. That's not to say I automatically disagree with him on every issue - but he has a very obvious bent to his commentaries. Its not unlike McDonalds saying to its customers that all of our burgers are made with "100% Prime Beef^TM - where 100% Prime Beef^TM is the name of a company and not a guarantee of a food quality.

Its all advertising and marketing - the actuality doesn't match the projection.

And if you watch closely, his show and many of the talk radio shows all follow a certain formula - make an issue out of something, have a definitive opinion about it, and ridicule any dissenting opinion that deviates from the position that the host takes. Some people love that sh!t the way they get riled up over an impassioned preacher's sermon. They love someone telling them like it is, and to feel the victor. It's a method that preys on their underlying fears and uncertainties - people who just can't make sense of this ever changing world - too much information, too many things going on - they want someone to guide them towards certainty and they find it comforting that there are such personalities such as Limbaugh and O'Reilly who indulge on such listener loyalty.

And all this continuous talk of biased media ignores the fact that much of it is just plain $hit.

[Caladan 19]

You almost expect both sides to come out in little cheerleader uniforms with their leader's name emblazoned on the breast.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You almost expect both sides to come out in little cheerleader uniforms with their leader's name emblazoned on the breast.

Just wait for the usual suspects to jump on this thread later on - with the obligatory "Your ALL Liberal BARSTARDS".

[Caladan 19]

You almost expect both sides to come out in little cheerleader uniforms with their leader's name emblazoned on the breast.

Just wait for the usual suspects to jump on this thread later on - with the obligatory "Your ALL Liberal BARSTARDS".

Not my fault the color on the leotards doesn't match their eyes.

[Jenn! 918]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

yes, i've seen that very link. but what, pray tell, connects mckinley to all of that? guilt by association? or are you saying the president is to blame for propaganda films? keep trying.

Charles, you've got to be kidding me. You're not that stupid, are you? Just admit you're wrong and we'll all move on. Or don't, I don't really care.

why is it you just can't answer that? or is it - you can't so you try to play it off on me? i'm wanting proof and so far all i've seen is you saying he did this, not any specifics!

and yet i'm still waiting........

[Reynaldo 0]

yes, i've seen that very link. but what, pray tell, connects mckinley to all of that? guilt by association? or are you saying the president is to blame for propaganda films? keep trying.

Charles, you've got to be kidding me. You're not that stupid, are you? Just admit you're wrong and we'll all move on. Or don't, I don't really care.

why is it you just can't answer that? or is it - you can't so you try to play it off on me? i'm wanting proof and so far all i've seen is you saying he did this, not any specifics!

and yet i'm still waiting........

Why will she bother to answer you if you are not going to hear it?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

yes, i've seen that very link. but what, pray tell, connects mckinley to all of that? guilt by association? or are you saying the president is to blame for propaganda films? keep trying.

Charles, you've got to be kidding me. You're not that stupid, are you? Just admit you're wrong and we'll all move on. Or don't, I don't really care.

why is it you just can't answer that? or is it - you can't so you try to play it off on me? i'm wanting proof and so far all i've seen is you saying he did this, not any specifics!

and yet i'm still waiting........

Why will she bother to answer you if you are not going to hear it?

rey, just because she says it is so don't mean it is. i'm waiting for a link to something that proves it. until then, it's just hot air on her part.

[Reynaldo 0]

rey, just because she says it is so don't mean it is. i'm waiting for a link to something that proves it. until then, it's just hot air on her part.

The whole question proves that you are not willing to see things differently that you already do.

In Bush's case, it is clear that he lied to the congress in the state of the union address.

But in McKinley's, history has made it blurry. The fact that the whole rationale for the war on Spain was based on propaganda is well known now. And he was part of the gov't. So if he didn't have anything to do with the propaganda, then he was just used.

Now, tell me, how can the commander-in-chief of the united states be used to declare a war on Spain just based on someone else's propaganda?

Is that what you trying to say?

That McKinley wasn't the real thing behind the Spanish American war?

Isn't that a little to naive (to think that the most powerful man in the country was used like that)?

But, honestly Chuck, what are you defending?