This coming from someone whose guy relied on a 527 full of political hatchetmen to discredit his opponent's character.

Exactly.

Cs, please tell us whether we are spineless cowards or mean, offensive, in-your-face radicals? Do we flip-flop too much or are we too firm in our beliefs?

We need you republicans to tell us how to shut up and get in line!

Please understand that I am a liberal and I am more proud of that then most might imagine.

That said, CS isn't entirely wrong simply because he is a Repug, or because he recites the talking points.

A wise liberal would hear what he really has to say and discard the bullshit!



Truth.
Sometimes Liberals can be very condescending and quite hypocritical.
No, I am not saying you or anyone in perticular.
I'm saying, it does happen!

We are liberals.
We can stand the heat and clean our own house!
We can stand to be self critical.
As individulas we can ask our selves, could I have done that better?

We are not them.
We are the most noble things that are American.
We need not fear the pointing finger.

We also need not be so smug about the fact that we need not fear the pointing finger!

We need them as much as they need us!


Even CS has a place in my liberal house!

Care to do a head count and a funding audit of the 527's to figure out which side had more and which were better funded?????




I thought not.

Thank you Sky.


My point is, that the vitriol we witnessed in the last election harmed your side. If you think we participated in it, so be it. I don't like it when either side slings mud, but I am trying to be objective when I say the left damn near cornered the market this past election.

It does not work. When you get too far off the wall with those type of accusations, people can see through it. Try sticking closer to the truth, there was plenty of real stuff to use against Bush, but you opted for the fringe conspiracy stuff and it backfired.

This is, of course, deliberate and knowing disinformation. Black is white and "everyone" knows this is true.

What percentage of Bush's were negative in the last campaign? Was it 57% or 61%? I've seen both figures. Why don't you google "Bush negative ad" and find out.

What ever happened to the Kerry intern scandal last February? Recall that Hannity devoted nine hours of prime air time to this unsupported smear. Rush devoted twelve complete hours. Ailes had his rube rousing rags in the UK pushing the unsupported story for two weeks I hear that the story originated with Talon News. Isn't this the same people that hired Jeff Gannon as a "Journalist"?

I note that when the intern surfaced and denied the story, Rush and Drudge promised to get back to us later with proof.

Well .... it's later. Where is the proof that the RNC noise machine promised us for the baseless smear? Is Rush going to stick to his lame story that Clinton was behind it? I think that only works for uneducated white males who are desperately trying to avoid the facts in front of their faces.

When are the Swift boat vets going to prove up their allegations? I've never seen them disprove anything. They simply keep push new stories as the old ones are debunked. Are they still claiming that there was no firefight when Kerry recured the guy in the river or is this "OLD NEWS".

I listen to Rush and Hannity everyday. Hannity spends about 80% of his time attacking political opponents. Rush is running about 76%. This is five days per week, 52 weeks per year.

Go read the driipping hate and venom on FreeRepublic. Count the number of comments deriding the other side in relation to the total.

Recall that the text below was produced and distributed by FreeRepublic. It was emailed to me - as a guide - by one of the members. In addition, it was published on another forum by another FR member.

Title: 25 Rules of Disinformation
Source: TOS
URL Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a394fc1cf0ba9.htm
Published: Jun 20, 2000
Author: metalbird1
Post Date: 2004-09-13 04:56:53 by Becket Saunders
3 Comments


Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Yeah let's start off with Swift boat liars...yeah I thought not... Moron

Doc

Gee quick answer, because you stole it...yup...

Wrong again, the "offical records" that were "found" in Denver never proved anything and tell me CS why were those "offical records" found in Denver instead of St. Louis where they are supposed to be. You see dumbass, most people don't know that the "offical records" of retired and separated personnel go to St. Louis to be microfiched....you see they couldn't go to St. Louis because those records were take care of by Bush's friends. The so called records that they found proved nothing...

There were no eye witness testimorny and his superior officer said he never saw Bush. There were no "others" to come forward to say he served.

The only lies is from moron's like yourself and the Right Wing...your president is a coward, like you plain and simple.

Truth hurts doesn't it...chicken hawk.

Yeah and you need to stop.

Yeah Right...

Don't think so moron, look around you, it was and is Bush's fault, and yes Bush is the worst president since Hoover.

yeah it's amazing what you can do when you fudge the numbers, hey I know I'm an accountant. I can make 2+2=5 too.

What the truth hurts, and really if you didn't follow him so blindly we wouldn't call you a Nazis, but he is, so you are the company you keep.

So according to you little brain we lost the election because we told the truth....we let me let you in on a little secrete, CS, I'd rather tell the truth then to continue to lie like you guys do. Oh and we lost the election because of voting manpulation by the Repugs, Ohio and Florida were stolen again, if that's the way you want to when then you are a sad...sad...little man.


Doc

...of course you do, but let's get to the truth, the reason why we "lose" elections is because your side steals them....we won 2000 and 2004, guys and your voting machines stole the elections....I can't wait until the shoe is on the other foot...I want to hear you bitch and moan about how unfair it is.....


Again you never answered my post, your president is a deserter, those "documents" you keep on yelling about prove nothing and there are no witnesses that said they saw Bush perform his required drills, Bush is a deserter and chicken hawk, hey just like you.


Doc

The amount of publicity is what matters, not the money or the other stuff. The Swift Boat Vets had massive publicity that swayed the results of the election. MoveOn didn't have that privilege outside of wonkish circles like the ones we're in.

Keeps losing?

CS, your party only just begun to win a few (nationally). Statistically and historically the Liberal party is the dominant party in America.

Enjoy this moment while you can CS.
Yer gonna have to enjoy the after taste for a long time!

Bushco has done you no favors!
If Republicans were not so generally regressive and repugnant, I might even feel pity.
It's just too bad Republicans apply the ol' double standard and don't require their own integrity!

That's right, and if they can't win fair and square they steal and that is just what they have done in the last two elections, moral party my ass....


Doc

Um, we don't lose elections.
Neocons STEAL elections.
This is officially a dictatorship now.
WE, including you, are ruled by a bunch of thugs who don't give a shit how they make money just so long as they do.

CS, let's do a head count on who owns the MEDIA.
I didn't think you'd want to look at that one either.

Google it, you RAW DEAL REPUBLICAN!!!!

Re-read Deborah's posts. They're very good.
She's casting pearls before swine. Metaphorically speaking.
You will note I did not call YOU a swine.

And I'll visit you at Sky's house 'cause I'm not having you over to my house any time soon.

It doesn't matter one bit who owns the media. It matters who controls the content. Liberals control the content. Who are the editors, the producers the writers, etc. 90% of the Media votes Democratic. (forgive the estimation -but that isn'ttoo far off).


If this were a dictatorship, I would be the only one left posting on this board. There would be no Daily Kos, no Common Dreams, no Mother Jones no Buzzflash no Bartcop, no information clearinghouse, NONE.

The hyperbole is astounding.

Don't worry Panda! I can take it. Hell, I put up with Doc. don't I????

Wanna bet?

There is no objective measure by which that statement can be backed up. Bush's best months compare fairly well against Clinton's best months. And the ones that you consider Bush's worst, well, Clinton's policies were still the driving factor.

The phony AWOL stuff certainly got a lot of play. The problem you had is that you kept trying to bring up and rehash already DISPROVEN lies. The lengths your side and the MSM went to, to try and revive this clap trap exposed the press as shills for the dems (as if we didn't already know that) and showed how intellectually vacant the Dems have become.

Most of the stuff the swifties brought up was new and was based on fact. Kerry had to alter his story on a number on instances because his version was verifiably wrong. On the stuff that there remains questions about, HE WROTE the after combat reports PERSONALLY. When weighed against the obvious lies he told in the independently verifiable instances, those reports seem a bit suspect.

The vote fraud thing is plainly and simply wrong. There is simply no proof. BBV was a fraud designed to lighten your pockets and Bev Harris suckered many of you. The kooky conspiracy theories are simply that. KOOKY conspiracy theories. Kerry wanted the Presidency, if there were any REAL violations of any significance, he would have contested the election. In Florida, every independant study shows that Bush won by the standards set before the election. Bush won by the Standard that Al Gore sued for. Bush absolutely won by EVERY standard except one ILLEGAL standard - the one where you hired miss cleo and she read the minds of the voters who cast votes for two candidates - and if she determined that 80% of the illegal votes were for Gore..

Don't worry, we are fixing the problems you libs have caused. The economy is on the right track, SS will soon follow. We are eliminating hundreds of terrorists each day and drying up the funding for the rest. Libya is mending it's ways as are the Palastinians.

Afghanistan has voted in a free election for the first time in it's history. The Palastinians have voted freely for the first time and now so have the Iraqi citizens. Our "partners" in the ME have taken note of Bush's insistence that they reform to allow democracy and they are STARTING to institute the needed changes.

We have a ways to go, but hopefully we can fix things before another Democrat comes along and screws it all up again.

Pointing out votes that your opponent made is not dirty politics. Making up false AWOL accusations is. Bush's negative ads were either on actual records - the type of advertising that SHOULD be run - or they were produced by outside groups and IMMEDIATELY condemned by the President. Your side had high profile CANDIDATES and campaign leaders spouting the AWOL and MIHOP/LIHOP lies. Kerry repeatedly REFUSED to condemn his 527 smear attempts. At times he even repeated them.

That is one HELL of a big difference

They both get counted the same, but they are not and you know it.

Obviously you don't know what the hell you are talking about. It's the editors that have to answer to the owners.

That is like saying fascist regimes don't have dissent or elections. They often do. There is also something called "friendly fascism". What we have today is "fascism lite" only because there is still somewhat of an opposition party. Not all fascism looks like Nazi Germany. Suharto, Pinochet, Mussolini, Franco. Open your eyes and try not to see the world in black and white.

CS. This is a game we don't play here. You've been proven wrong on this before. You know you have.
http://oldamericancentury.org/bb/index.php?showtopic=1189
For you to say otherwise is to be lying. We here in the reality based community don't tolerate that in our reality based forum. Consider that your warning. Try that shit again and you are gone.

Silly kid. Here's just one unanswered question. Why did he have his records removed from this storage facility and hidden from the press and public?
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bush_record.htm
He said he'd show them. He said he'd already shown all of his records. And still more kept showing up. Every time he said he'd disclosed all of his records, still more came out. And how come nobody has come forward to collect the reward for proving that Bush was in Alabama? He wasn't legally AWOL, but he didn't show up for duty.


I'm not going to waste any more time on this. CS, this thread was about a strategy for taking back America. not an invitation for you to troll and make more of an ass of youtrself. i consider what you are doing now to be nothing more than disruption. Now scoot out of here and go back to some other thread and tell us how Iran-Contra was a smear campaign and continue to compare Jeff "Gannon" to Tom Brokaw and let the adults have a real discussion in here. Any more absurd attempts to disrupt a real discussion here will result in you being banned for good. You are a guest in a progressive forum. Behave as such.

That still did not get nearly as much attention as the Swift Boat stuff. "Got a lot of play" could mean anything, you know.

Here's some information from non-partisan factcheck.org. I'll let you look at it.

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

Yeah the reason why the "phony" AWOL got alot of play and it didn't because its' true, you never answered my post CS about the mysterous papers showing up in Denver, WHERE they shouldn't have been....not to mentioned that they didn't prove anything accept to cloud the issue. Bush is deseter, and you can't prove that he's not.

Doc

Yup he's the best....


Doc

CS. Don't thank me. I wasn't defending you!
I was asking my fellow progressives to be sure of their own motivations.

You have yet to show me a valid argument that would or could convince me.
On the contrary. I have seen you react all to typicially conservative.


Talking points will kill the Republican party.
Staying on topic -vs- truth and honesty!

I like it Regessive it is....

Doc

Doc,


Let me be more specific...

We don't need the Neo-Conservatives, but do need the Republicans.

The Neo-cons have hijacked the Republican party. I'd have to spend time to find teh article, but a side story from last years election was a story from Flathead county Montana in which the Republican party was in a very hot battle to regain control of their party FROM the neo-cons!

This is a two party system. More than two and it weakens the process. Only one and you have no process. I am a die hard liberal who is able to admit with out someone watching us and keeping us on our toes, we get lazy and complacent, even hypoctitical sometimes. (witness the Bush years and the neo-cons)

CS does NOT represent the Republican party. Part of what he does is legit, and part of what he does to fire you up is purely entertainment for him. Why else would he continue to come back and be verbally abused? Really! Think about it! When you react, he won!

In my opinion CS is a Repug mainly because his interests are almost all self serving!

BTW CS. (Free Hint) I some times have been known to do a little baiting myself! But I'll bet if you tried to guess when or where you would be wrong! Because I don't work like you, and being able to "listen" with the other persons ear is not all that easy!

Three terms we should use, IMO:

CHEAP-LABOR CONSERVATIVES
RAW DEAL REPUBLICANS
REGRESSIVE REPUBLICANS.


I didn't think of them myself....I'm not that bright....but I have seen their use now by several progessive sites and I'd like to see those terms used to descibe the neocon Repubs in every day usage.

They continue to label us....whatever the hell they like.......let's label them right back.

I like them all Panda, and yes you are that bright...


Doc

Oh yeah, you are that bright.
Brilliance doesn't need attention to exist.
It just does!

I've been identifying myself as a Blue NeoDem Progressive. And its variations.

But deliberately portraying these votes in a false and misleading manner is. This is what Bush did that is drity - as you know, but are trying to spin away in a propagana move. Among other things, Bush deliberately falsiified the war record of his opponent. Bush refused to disown the false statements of the group of shillls he now has pushing his social security program.

WRT Bush being AWOL. Not one record has come forward to refute this charge. Just a diversionary tactic with documents alleged, but never proven to be forged. Bush is still unable to show he was on duty or produce a credible witness. He has been caught in mistatements on this subject. What we have are a group of well founded accusations, a shuck and jive response and a well orchestrated smoke screen. Given that the facts have never been refuted, why is it unethical to bring them up?

Not stolen, and by the way you wear it well....


Doc

Exactly, and the Repugs take that shuck and jive as fact...pathetic...It's like the story tellers of old that made Davy Crocket a myth, Earp a hero, they tell the story over and over with different varations to make their "hero" a hero...you know like the Germans did with Hitler.


Doc