Predicto Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I just wanted to get this quote locked in before someone else tells you Koch is a Democrat. :slap: Yeah, sorta. Since leaving office, Koch has frequently endorsed prominent Republican candidates, including Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg for Mayor, Al D'Amato for U.S. Senate, Peter T. King for U.S. House, George Pataki for Governor, and, in 2004, George W. Bush for President of the United States... He is a contributor to Newsmax, a conservative magazine... Koch was an early supporter of the Iraq War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Koch I'm not saying that he's a conservative, but he is actually hard to define. He's got a lot of neo-con in him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 He's no more a propagandist than George Will, Charles Krouthammer, or David Brooks. All these people come at a story with clear bias, just as Moore does. All these guys present a one sided view of the topic. They just do it in print and he does it in much more depth with a movie camera. There are many things which differentiate them... not the least of which is the existance of an editor and publisher. Writer's are held under the standard of the institutions they write for and under the direct supervision of their editor. Moore answers to his conscience. You have a point in the sense that each of the men you mentioned are collumnists and commentators and are paid to produce an opinion, but that's a very shallow angle to look at if you think it's the end of the story. (Pretty funny that you have me arguing the conservative side usually on ES things are so stilted the other way I can only argue for the liberal side.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Yeah, sorta. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Koch I'm not saying that he's a conservative, but he is actually hard to define. He's got a lot of neo-con in him. neo-con = liberal with different pet projects Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Moores critics are knee jerk detractors who put little thought into why they are against him other than the fact that they are on the opposite side of the discussion from him and typically deamonize any strong voice on the opposition. And Moore is a strong clear voice. I am rarely on the opposite side of the discussion from Moore (at least not completely). I just don't like the way he chops up facts, puts them in the blender and hits frapé. His attacks on the establishment no different than, say, Thomas DiLorenzo's attacks on Abraham Lincoln. He takes bits and pieces of reality and sews them together into his own little personal reality, and then has the nerve to suggest his numerous omissions of truth are not the equivalent of a big lie. Unlike Will or Krauthammer who write opinion pieces, Moore films 'documentaries' and suggests that because they contain facts, his premises are true. I don't like that. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 neo-con = liberal with different pet projects Nope... neo-cons have been bad mouthing liberals non stop and conservatives have marched in lockstep with them for decades. They're yours. You can't foist them off on us. We don't want them. You voted for them. You endorsed them. You defended them. You brought them into power. You put them back into power. They're you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 I'm not saying that he's a conservative... But boobiemiles was. According to boobiemiles, Koch is an example of those GoP'ers who whine and cry when it gets dirty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Michael Moore is definitely a propagandist. He finds facts to support an assumption rather than basing his assumptions on facts. I find him very intellectually dishonest and insulting to the intelligence of his audience. Yes he does... Just like everybody else on the Editorial Page. What separates him from a propagandist is those facts are pretty much solidly correct. And the facts he uncovers are pretty freaking amaizing.... Who knew the Saudi's had sunk millions in failed business ventures which George W. Bush managed in failed business opprotunities; before GW entered politics. Who knew that George Sr had hundreds of millions in business dealing with the Saudis. Or that George Sr was on first name basis and was sitting across the table from Osama Bin Laudin's brother on the morning of 911. That's freaking amaizing stuff, when you consider the Press had years to inform us about that after 911 but failed. Now what does it prove... maybe not much; but wouldn't you like to know about those kinds of incredible facts... Like Cuba ranked just bellow the US in the United Nation's World Health Organization survey on healthcare delivery systems... The US ranking bellow COSTA RICA!!!.. That's amaizing. Sara Palin makes stuff up or just isn't smart enougth to understand what she's saying is laughable... "I can see Russia from my back door", "I have military leadership experience because Alaska sortie's interceptors to Russian bombers on a regular basis".. etc etc Glenn Beck smart enough to know better but doesn't really care. Moore is smart enough to build a case, and does so with a significant amount of skill. I don't always agree with editrials I read in the newspapers. But the good ones, I rate as good, because they inform me. Moore always informs. He get's attacked mostly by folks who are so shocked by his premises they refuse to watch his films.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Nope... neo-cons have been bad mouthing liberals non stop and conservatives have marched in lockstep with them for decades. They're yours. You can't foist them off on us. We don't want them. You voted for them. You endorsed them. You defended them. You brought them into power. You put them back into power. They're you! If you mean prior to 2004, I guess that could be true. Since then....not so much. I learned the hard way that there is little difference between the neo-con animal and the liberal animal. Thats why I dislike both frames of thought politically. Both rely on spending and debt to get their way Both pretend to hate the other sides views, but when given a chance to do something about it, both end up giving in and keeping each others programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 no, there really are very little similarities. he ranted as mich or more about literacy than anything related to so called "anti-government". in the materials I saw.If you only watched a few YouTube videos, then you have only seen a small piece of the story. You probably missed my previous response to you, so I'll repost some of it here: Jared, a curious teenager who at times could be intellectually intimidating, stood out because of his passionate opinions about government — and his obsession with dreams.He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government. “I think he feels the people should be able to govern themselves,” said Ms. Figueroa, his former girlfriend. “We didn’t need a higher authority.” Breanna Castle, 21, another friend from junior and senior high school, agreed. “He was all about less government and less America,” she said, adding, “He thought it was full of conspiracies and that the government censored the Internet and banned certain books from being read by us.” Among the books that he would later cite as his favorites: “Animal Farm,” “Fahrenheit 451,” “Mein Kampf” and “The Communist Manifesto.” Also: “Peter Pan.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html?hp=&pagewanted=allThere was something undeniably political about Loughner's attack. Even his obsession with literacy is tied up in his political beliefs. It is not organized politics, and it may not even be coherent politics, but it is politics. I see the actual tactics taking place in the Alinsky strategy first hand. Please dont take this as me claiming a conspiracy. It isnt one, at least not a large scale one. But the facts are right there for you to see that there is in fact planning by SOME in the media to seek and destroy her. See Journo-list scandal for context.There was nothing in the Journo-list e-mails discussing an Alinsky strategy. Palin was placed on a stage, and journalists sought to belittle her. They did not strategically choose her as a target at that time.I think the Alinsky method is a very well thought out and sound strategy to go after your opponent with. It works.I do think that the Democratic Party, and the White House, purposefully engage Fox News and Palin using an Alinsky-like strategy today, but that didn't originate with the Journo-list scandal at the time that Palin was chosen to be the VP candidate. Republicans deliberately placed her in the spotlight then, and it backfired.Today, it's a mix of Palin's own desire to be in the spotlight, the desire of news organizations to get ratings and readers, and the Democratic Party deliberately trying to paint the Republicans as radicals. To pin it all on one party would be inaccurate. Palin's fame benefits a lot of people, especially herself and her family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 But boobiemiles was. According to boobiemiles, Koch is an example of those GoP'ers who whine and cry when it gets dirty. This is absolutely correct. Koch is not a GOPer. I just wanted to point out that he is not really a liberal either. What he is mostly is an absolute die-hard supporter of Israel, and everything that it does. In that sense, he is pretty much lockstep with Palin. But you are correct, and Boobie was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 If you only watched a few YouTube videos, then you have only seen a small piece of the story. You probably missed my previous response to you, so I'll repost some of it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html?hp=&pagewanted=allI did miss it before. Thanks for the repost. By political, I was meaning the left vs right paradigm. Specifically in response to the silly claims that he somehow had similarity to the tea party (just silly) There was something undeniably political about Loughner's attack. Even his obsession with literacy is tied up in his political beliefs. It is not organized politics, and it may not even be coherent politics, but it is politics. There was nothing in the Journo-list e-mails discussing an Alinsky strategy. Palin was placed on a stage, and journalists sought to belittle her. They did not strategically choose her as a target at that time. They did strategiclly choose her at the time of her announcement of VP candidate with McCain. They needed a strategy to diminish her in the public eye and did a great job (with her help, the idiot) in enacting the strategy.[/b ]I do think that the Democratic Party, and the White House, purposefully engage Fox News and Palin using an Alinsky-like strategy today, but that didn't originate with the Journo-list scandal at the time that Palin was chosen to be the VP candidate. Republicans deliberately placed her in the spotlight then, and it backfired. I cant disagree with this Today, it's a mix of Palin's own desire to be in the spotlight, the desire of news organizations to get ratings and readers, and the Democratic Party deliberately trying to paint the Republicans as radicals. To pin it all on one party would be inaccurate. Palin's fame benefits a lot of people, especially herself and her family. I cant disagree with any of this either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 Today, it's a mix of Palin's own desire to be in the spotlight, the desire of news organizations to get ratings and readers, and the Democratic Party deliberately trying to paint the Republicans as radicals. To pin it all on one party would be inaccurate. Palin's fame benefits a lot of people, especially herself and her family. Palin is clearly opportunistic here. She doesn't come from much and she has created a windfall for herself. I don't want her to represent me in the government but good for her personally. What's really disappointing to me is that so many news organizations feed this phenomenon. Since she quit on Alaska, Palin isn't responsible to anyone but her family. I would hope that the news organizations are responsible to the public but apparently they have other priorities. I think the Democrats are allowing themselves to be distracted but I'll defer to their own sense of self interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Did it backfire DJTJ? :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 neo-con = liberal with different pet projects Uh, no. Some original neocons came from the left at the beginning, but many did not. Guys like Dick Cheney and John Bolton - there isn't a speck of liberal in those guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Palin is clearly opportunistic here. She doesn't come from much and she has created a windfall for herself. I don't want her to represent me in the government but good for her personally. What's really disappointing to me is that so many news organizations feed this phenomenon. Since she quit on Alaska, Palin isn't responsible to anyone but her family. I would hope that the news organizations are responsible to the public but apparently they have other priorities. I think the Democrats are allowing themselves to be distracted but I'll defer to their own sense of self interest. we are pretty much on the same page. She really could have and should have faded into obscurity, but she has the feel of lightening rod now, and I think its to her detractors detriment personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Sara Palin makes stuff up or just isn't smart enougth to understand what she's saying is laughable... "I can see Russia from my back door", "I have military leadership experience because Alaska sortie's interceptors to Russian bombers on a regular basis".. etc etc Glenn Beck smart enough to know better but doesn't really care. Moore is smart enough to build a case, and does so with a significant amount of skill. I don't always agree with editrials I read in the newspapers. But the good ones I rate as good because they inform me. Moore always informs. Yes, Moore is more like Rush Limbaugh. He very carefully puts his arguments together so his supporters can say 'point out where his facts are wrong.' It is a fact that I'm Jewish. It's also a fact that in the seventh grade I got into a fight with an Episcopalian kid and clocked him in the face. A propagandist like Michael Moore would take those facts and suggest that Jews like to beat up Christian kids. Which is a lie. Based on facts. Which in my opinion is worse on the level of intellectual dishonesty than some columnist who just states an opinion based on his own openly admitted political leanings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Uh, no. Some original neocons came from the left at the beginning, but many did not. Guys like Dick Cheney and John Bolton - there isn't a speck of liberal in those guys. I recall Cheney pushing just as much spending a debt as even the most ardent liberal. I also recall his support for corporatism and enlarging the state to huge degrees. I'd agree he doesnt have an ounce of livberal in him. He has 10 pounds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Nope... neo-cons have been bad mouthing liberals non stop and conservatives have marched in lockstep with them for decades. They're yours. You can't foist them off on us. We don't want them. You voted for them. You endorsed them. You defended them. You brought them into power. You put them back into power. They're you! That's a typical glen beck assertion you just swatted back across the net. That neocon's who believe in pre-emptive military action are somehow really Democrats because the Democrat Woodrow Wilson in 1914 was the first American President to engage the country in foreign entanglements since George Washington warned us away from such activities.... There are facts behind the assertion but they are uncompelling facts given the long history of Republicans even conservative republicans like Eisenhower, Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and the Bush Sr; who all have endorsed such policies as Wilson's without moving into Pre-emptive warfare justifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I recall Cheney pushing just as much spending a debt as even the most ardent liberal. I also recall his support for corporatism and enlarging the state to huge degrees.I'd agree he doesnt have an ounce of livberal in him. He has 10 pounds! Oh, I forgot, we are using the SnyderShrugged scale. Libertarians are the only "conservatives" - everyone else is a naughty liberal. Dick Cheney is the same as Noam Chomsky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Did it backfire DJTJ? :evilg:Well, in the short-term, choosing Palin probably gave Obama a much larger victory than there would have been if McCain had just picked a random other Republican as VP. This helped to create a bigger majority in the House, a little more room to operate in the Senate, and contributed to a health care bill passing by the skin of its teeth. In the medium-term, a fired-up Tea Party base has helped the Republicans take back the House of Representatives. In the long-term ... call me in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I recall Cheney pushing just as much spending a debt as even the most ardent liberal. I also recall his support for corporatism and enlarging the state to huge degrees.I'd agree he doesnt have an ounce of livberal in him. He has 10 pounds! Nope. You just don't know what a liberal is. That which defines one a Conservative or a Liberal isn't defined by spending. You are falling for a very old phallacy which is that which I don't like is "other" You don't like undisciplined spending and so you define the action as liberal. A quick look at history, pick any decade or century shows that your premice fails. Conservatives love to spend. They just spend a little bit differently. Liberals spend on your tired, your poor, your sick, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and the wretched refuse of your teeming shore... whereas Conservatives like to spend on themselves. ---------- Post added January-18th-2011 at 03:35 PM ---------- That's a typical glen beck assertion you just swatted back across the net. That neocon's who believe in pre-emptive military action are somehow really Democrats because the Democrat Woodrow Wilson in 1914 was the first American President to engage the country in foreign entanglements since George Washington warned us away from such activities....There are facts behind the assertion but they are uncompelling facts given the long history of Republicans even conservative republicans like Eisenhower, Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and the Bush Sr; who all have endorsed such policies as Wilson's without moving into Pre-emptive warfare justifications. Umm... I think you got it backwards... I think this argument is aimed at SS. tsk tsk. You just like sparring with me even though you are almost always wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 That's a typical glen beck assertion you just swatted back across the net. That neocon's who believe in pre-emptive military action are somehow really Democrats because the Democrat Woodrow Wilson in 1914 was the first American President to engage the country in foreign entanglements since George Washington warned us away from such activities....There are facts behind the assertion but they are uncompelling facts given the long history of Republicans even conservative republicans like Eisenhower, Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and the Bush Sr; who all have endorsed such policies as Wilson's without moving into Pre-emptive warfare justifications. yuck! beck! I didnt compare them to democrats I compared them to liberals. There is a difference you know? Anyone who endorses Wilsons policies is in the neo-con/liberal camp (IMHO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 You know Koch is a Dem, right? (and the hitler mustache was from the leftist group LaRouche btw)edit: Jinx Mardi gras! LOL Come on S2, you're better than that. LaRouche's group is nutty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Come on S2, you're better than that. LaRouche's group is nutty. did I say somewhere that they werent? I cant stand them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 did I say somewhere that they werent? I cant stand them!They may be leftist, but that's just like saying WBC is Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.