navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Political Attack Ads & eventually Michael J Fox
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Political Attack Ads & eventually Michael J Fox Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Brian James
Member
since 2005-06-26
Posts 147
Winnipeg

0 posted 2006-10-26 08:49 PM


http://nelson.sitebuilder.completecampaigns.com/common/media.php?id=6398

If you have trouble loading this video, see it on Google video:  http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-359178184718168284&q=ron+kind

Now this ad might be a little inappropriate for the workplace, or something.  You can watch it here, online.

My response from watching this ad:  hilarious, but sadly not at all hard to believe.


[This message has been edited by Brian James (10-28-2006 06:00 PM).]

© Copyright 2006 Brian James Lee - All Rights Reserved
iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
1 posted 2006-10-26 09:00 PM


Brian, for some reason, I can't get the video to start.  Is it working?
Brian James
Member
since 2005-06-26
Posts 147
Winnipeg
2 posted 2006-10-26 09:01 PM


Try the link to the version on Google video that I added in my edit.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
3 posted 2006-10-26 10:47 PM


You must be really bored tonight, Brian.  

That video is garbage.


iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
4 posted 2006-10-27 12:13 PM


Thanks for the other link,Brian.  It worked.  I agree with Ess that it is garbage, especially if it is the truth.  What is with these people anyhow...is everybody in congress a sex addict?  LOL...but sad, too.
Brian James
Member
since 2005-06-26
Posts 147
Winnipeg
5 posted 2006-10-27 04:16 PM


Oh chill out, Ess.  You can't just have some fun for a change?
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
6 posted 2006-10-27 06:04 PM


It doesn't happen often, but I agree with Ess.

The bare concept of "pointing out" the evil ways of a political opponent is, at best, misplaced. It's a more snide version of tattling in order to make one's self look better and if anyone even remotely believes the message is delivered with an unbiased perspective they are seriously deluded. Context is key to understanding and something you can rarely find in a 30 second sound bite.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
7 posted 2006-10-27 06:13 PM


I concur that this is one of the most filthiest pieces of garbage ever aired in a political campaign.

Of course, in all recent elections, a maority of what you see are attack ads traded back and forth between both our political parties, many of which are themselves disgusting and designed for nothing more than character assassination rather than having an honest, positive assessment and healthy discussion of the issues and questioning ones opponent in where we can do better.

Paul Nelson does nothing regarding the latter in this ad, and rather decides to dedicate over a minute of air time landing as many punches below the belt as possible. And WHY is Nelson doing this; because he is desperate, because he KNOWS he's behind in the polls, and when you appear unelectable to the public, some know Halloween tactics are all they have left to experiment with.

*

My God, there are so many attack ads this mid-term season I can point to that share this sort of mad desperation:

*

1) The Raw Story: Maryland National Black Republican Association Radio Ad

Beginning in mid-September, The National Black Republican Association aired a radio ad in Maryland, claiming that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, and that Democrats were responsible for starting the Ku Klux Klan and opposed all civil rights legislation from the 1860's to the 1960's.

To some extent some claims are actually historically accurate, but what's also clear is that the GOP and Democratic Party of today are little like the parties of yesteryears, thus this radio ad appears to suggest the Democratic Party today is just like the Democratic Party of the 1860's and still succumbs to the same exact prejudices of yesteryears.

*

2) YouTube: Republican National Committee Ad: October 21, 2006

A Republican National Committee ad released last week features still-images of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, quotes from each of these head terror figures, while a clock ticks in the background. It concludes climatically with a massive nuclear explosion, followed by the words, "These are the stakes,", hauntingly hearkening back to the scare-tactic "Daisy" ad Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson's campaign aired in his re-election campaign.

Though the ad is not directly an attack ad, it obviously insinuates that should the Democratic Party take a majority in either the House or Senate, they will appease the terrorists of bin Laden and Zawahiri and allow such catastrophic attacks to happen.

*

3) Republican National Committee Ad: Phone Ad: October 20, 2006

This ad, defended by the GOP commitee, New York Republican incumbent Tom Reynolds, attacks Democratic challenger Michael Arcuri for his aides call in 2004 to a phone sex line, though even the records show the call at 800-457-8462 — a sex line —lasted only seconds, and was followed less than a minute later by a call to 518-457-8462, the state Department of Criminal Justice Services;a number ending with the exact same seven digits.

Reynolds himself has denounced the ad as "way over the line."  

*

4) Republican National Committee Ad: Ford's Not Right

This Mehlman-endorsed ad, which the Republican candidate for Tennessee's open Senate seat left by retiring Bill Frist, Bob Corker, himself has denounced as over the top, accuses Democratic opponent Harold Ford Jr. of insinuating he supports terrorists, has taken money from pornographers, and even suggests he has engaged in interracial sex with Playboy bunnies.

*

I think, inevitably, any dominating majority party that KNOWS that public opinion is turning agsinst them, like the Democratic Party knew in 1994 and the Republican Party knows now, are going to resort to these sorts of character assassination tactics because they know their own records are sour. But this is just ridiculous.

It's not to say that the Democrats are not resorting to these crude attack ad tactics as well; they unquestionably are by trying to connect Bush to every Republican candidate as their case for not re-electing GOP incumbents, raher than explain how Democrats are going to make changes for the better for this nation. But it's especially the GOP adopting this tactic this election season, like it was especially the Democrats in 1994.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
8 posted 2006-10-27 06:53 PM


well, it's just another gross attempt to divert people from the real issues at hand.
Sorry, but I cannot agree with you that this one is 'the best'...it makes me want to puke, not laugh, and I am not inclined to vote for anyone who puts out such trash(.)

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
9 posted 2006-10-28 12:00 PM


Nice,Noah, but I seem to miss any Democratic examples except for your small disclaimer at the end. By condemning bias, you are unfortunately displaying your own here.


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
10 posted 2006-10-28 12:23 PM


Michael, as I'm sure we both recall, in both your thread "Time to beat the Bush........again", as well as at least several other archived threads, I explicitly stated my opinion that though I believe you are biased in your opinions, I acknowledged virtually all people, because they hold true to their beliefs, all have biased thoughts. Here's an exact quotation from comment #35 in that thread I stated:

*

"But I do believe that his views tend to be slanted. Of course I believe a vast majority of individuals, including reasonably all of us here, have slanted vews, so that's nothing to be ashamed of, and room for improvement and growth comes in learning to be more flexible and independent-minded in conversations than others, which I try doing by alternating recently in starting posts that criticize something on one side followed by something on the other side, back and forth."

*

Indeed, though I acknowledged that both political parties engage in these dirty attack ad schemes, in terms of recent examples I revealed only GOP examples, and acknowledge the bias there.

Nonetheless, I stand by my view that the GOP has been engaging in these attack ad schemes much more than the Democrats this particular election cycle, and I didn't even previously mention the latest ads the RNC has been running against Webb regarding sexually suggestive passages in books he wrote almost 30 years ago; passages from books that were widely acclaimed from all kinds of personalities including John McCain.

*

*

By the way, it's funny that you bring up Michael J. Fox, because if you may or may not recall, in 2004 Fox was featured in a political ad supporting Republican Arlen Specter's re-election campaign on the same issue he is supporting Claire McCaskill's campaign on; stem cell research, which the Specter ad was featured on MSNBC yesterday.

Also, according to Newsmeat.com, Fox contributed $2,000 to Citizens For Arlen Specter for his re-election primary on May 13, 2003, revealing that though he generally has a preference for Democratic candidates, he is willing to endorse and contribute to Republican candidates who share a great dedication to embryonic stem cell research.

Rush Limbaugh on Michael J. Fox: Live Radio Program Video

Finally, I'm not sure if you have actually seen the edition of radio personality Rush Limbaugh's criticism toward Michael J. Fox's recent ad for McCaskill, but this is that kind of thing where when you see what happens it makes Limbaugh appear all the more offensive and low in his behavior.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
11 posted 2006-10-28 12:48 PM


Noah, you went through the internet to find and display examples of Republican ads you found to be offensive and yet you obviously did not do the same for Democratic ones that are equally as available. You only state that you are sure there are more republican ones than Democratiic ones. How in the world you can say that with the thousands of ads flying through fifty states is beyond me but you are not looking for any truth....you are looking for examples of what you want to see represented....as you have done. Actually , up to this point I had not considered you as being overly biased but this clearly shows you are.Hey, many of us are but please don't pretend you are speaking from the side of fairness because it is obvious you are not.

The Michael J. Fox ad is little different that Kerry claiming that,if it weren't for Bush, Christopher Reeve would be up and walking. They rely on the average person's lack of knowledge in these fields to know any different and they shoot for the dramatics....but, of course, nothing like that is sleazy because it's the Democrats doing it, right?

As far a Limbaugh's comments on Michael J. Fox, well, it's there for you to see. Seen Michael J. on his  tv guest appearances on Boston Legal or at news conferences, including the one shown on your example where he was speaking to newsmen? If you have you would not see one tenth of the shaking and gyrations his body is going through in that ad? Why is that, Noah? This wonderful party which you claim is not yours but you always go out of your way to support used Michael J. Fox like a puppet for that ad. They had him intentionally look as pathetic as possible to go for the sympathy nerve.....what a great group of guys.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
12 posted 2006-10-28 01:28 AM


Anyone who believes in something strongly is going to have biased thoughts, Michael, and I am certainly not suggesting I am the spokesman of fairness; I acknowledged that everyone here, including myself, come attached with biases, and it is a fact I'm not denying.

Having said that, I find it laughable that you make statements along the line of "This wonderful party which you claim is not yours but you always go out of your way to support." when in fact 1) I'm a registered Independent, 2) I already completed and mailed my mail-in ballot and voted far from a straight Democratic ticket, including voting Joe Keating of the Pacific Green Party for Governor and a couple Libertarian candidates for State House seats. In fact, I only voted for one Democrat this election cycle by the name of Earl Blumenauer for his re-election to Oregon's 3rd Congressional District, largey because of his devotion to the Darfur issue, and 3) I don't want them to take the House 10 days from today because they are arguably the marginally cleaner party at the moment, but because I believe in any case when a majority party dominates the nation, it can be dangerous to a democracy, especially if the party abuses their power as the GOP is currently and the Democrats did leading up to 1994, and I want to see a balance in power restored, even while I expect little progress to be made following this January.

How can you know for sure that Michael J. Fox hasn't truly had dyskinesia recently? Can't you accept the real possibility that, given he has been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease as far back as 1991 that within the last fifteen years he has taken many medications and thus his body has increasingly underwent certain side effects and such?

Beyond the discussion of his trembling itself and whether it was natural or deliberate, I felt that ad was a rather positive one that didn't degrade anyone's character, certainly not McCaskill's challenger Jim Talent, and all in all I believe the ad was designed to facillitate national dialogue on the issue of embryonic stem cell research and the importance of it in curing cases like Fox's, and ultimately there's little to compare and much more to contrast between Fox's peaceful ad and the specific brimstone-channeled ads I mentioned financed by Ken Mehlman.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
13 posted 2006-10-28 01:58 AM


quote:
This wonderful party which you claim is not yours but you always go out of your way to support used Michael J. Fox like a puppet for that ad. They had him intentionally look as pathetic as possible to go for the sympathy nerve.....what a great group of guys.

I think you give Fox too little credit, Michael. He's far smarter than most politicians, and I'm sure he knew exactly what he was doing. Look at the pattern and consistency and I'd be willing to bet it was Fox's idea.

And while I'm sure it was intentional, I'm equally sure it wasn't an act. Fox probably didn't take the medications that help mask the symptoms you describe as pathetic. That's the way people with Parkinson's disease are when they either can't afford or, because of individual chemistry, don't respond to levodopa. It's just a hint of the way Fox will eventually be 24/7 as the disease continues to progress.

Sympathy nerve? He sure as hell hit mine, Mike.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
14 posted 2006-10-28 03:14 PM


Ron, I agree that the misfortune of Michael J. Fox hits my sympathy nerve, also. I remember watching him in Back to the Future and the scene at the hop where he does the guitar piece playing Johnny B. Good. To see a man with so much incredible ability be struck down by such a cruel disease MUST invoke  sympathy for the gentleman.

That is not the question here,  however. The question is....is the ad honest? or is it a deliberate attempt at deception to benefit the Democratic party?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20061025/cm_rcp/the_unconscionable_claims_of _m

"Instead of focusing on Rush Limbaugh, which the media loves to do, it should be focusing on a very important question: Is the commercial that Michael J. Fox cut … honest? Is it dishonest? Is it misleading? But instead of asking those questions, the reason the media won't is because Michael J. Fox is a sympathetic victim. And when you have a sympathetic victim, whether it's Michael J. Fox or a less sympathetic victim, like Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in Iraq, or the Jersey Girls who campaigned for John Kerry's run for the White House, but they lost their husbands on 9/11. Bringing out victims doesn't encourage debate. It stifles debate…. If Rush Limbaugh had cut a commercial saying, 'I'm deaf, I can't hear and … I think we need more federal funds to research deaf problems and maybe we should take it away from welfare or maybe AIDS or something,' do you think the same media would show Rush Limbaugh the same compassion that they are showing Michael J. Fox? The answer is obviously no. And there's a reason for it. Because Rush Limbaugh is conservative and liberalism affects everything we do."

So...is Michael J. Fox  and the democrats behind the ad being honest? What IS the connection with Parkinson's  disease and stem cell research?

National Institute of Health:

    Parkinson's disease (PD) is a very common neurodegenerative disorder that affects more than 2 percent of the population over 65 years of age. PD is caused by a progressive degeneration and loss of dopamine (DA)-producing neurons, which leads to tremor, rigidity, and hypokinesia (abnormally decreased mobility). It is thought that PD may be the first disease to be amenable to treatment using stem cell transplantation. Factors that support this notion include the knowledge of the specific cell type (DA neurons) needed to relieve the symptoms of the disease. In addition, several laboratories have been successful in developing methods to induce embryonic stem cells to differentiate into cells with many of the functions of DA neurons.

    In a recent study, scientists directed mouse embryonic stem cells to differentiate into DA neurons by introducing the gene Nurr1. When transplanted into the brains of a rat model of PD, these stem cell-derived DA neurons reinnervated the brains of the rat Parkinson model, released dopamine and improved motor function.

    Regarding human stem-cell therapy, scientists are developing a number of strategies for producing dopamine neurons from human stem cells in the laboratory for transplantation into humans with Parkinson's disease. The successful generation of an unlimited supply of dopamine neurons could make neurotransplantation widely available for Parkinson's patients at some point in the future.


So...is the ad being accurate or not?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20061025/cm_rcp/the_unconscionable_claims_of _m


The popular and appealing actor Michael J. Fox has taken to the airwaves in Senate battleground states Missouri, Maryland, and New Jersey with a highly misleading ad urging defeat of Republican Senatorial candidates opposing the use of taxpayer dollars to fund new embryonic stem cell line research. He states,

    "Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.... But
    George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research."

Mr. Fox and his ads' sponsors are guilty of conflating embryonic stem cell research, which the GOP candidates and many Americans oppose for destroying a human life in the name of curing other people's diseases, with stem cell research in general, which includes adult stem cell research and umbilical cord blood stem cell research.

The only limits in question are on federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines, requiring the sacrifice of new embryos. Private and state-funded research (California voters are spending six billion dollars borrowing money to fund this) is ongoing. The implicit claim that research based on new embryos is "the most promising" is absurd, completely unsupported by the scientific literature, and an insult to voters, based as it is on the assumption that they are incapable of understanding the issue. Too stupid to tell the difference, is the elitist assumption underlying this campaign.

Flim-flam is a charitable description. Why would federally-funded research be more promising than state- and privately-funded research? And on what possible basis can the claim be made that embryonic stem cell research is more promising than adult stem cell research?

The plain fact is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using adult stem cells and zero using embryonic stem cells. Scientifically-minded readers can review this medical journal article on the status of adult stem cell research. Adult stem cell therapies are already being advertised and promoted while no such treatments are even remotely in prospect for embryonic stem cell research.

America is the most formidable medical research center in the world, but it is far from alone in pursuing the potential of adult stem cells. The worldwide effort is impressive and growing. For non-adult stem cell research, a morally unquestionable alternative source exists: stem cells drawn from umbilical cord blood. Already a bank exists in Dubai collecting cord blood stem cells.

In short, the claims made in the Michael J. Fox political ads are false and reprehensible, an insult to the voters of Maryland, Missouri and New Jersey, and to all Americans.


The sympathy we may feel for Michael J. Fox does not excuse using his disability and disease for political gain through misrepresentation and lies. Why would MJF allow this to be done? Hollywood has always been a liberal bastion with multi-millionaire actors, producers and directors. They side themselves with the  party of the "common man" against the party that is said to "favor the rich". Gee, that makes sense, right? Want a little eye-opener about how liberal Hollywood is and has been for the past 40 years?
http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/
I repeat....for the Democrats to take an unfortunate person like MJF, manipulate his appearance and medications to make him look as pathetic as possible, and then make claims that are completely untrue, all for the purpose of political gain......is despicable.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
15 posted 2006-10-28 04:24 PM


quote:
The sympathy we may feel for Michael J. Fox does not excuse using his disability and disease for political gain through misrepresentation and lies.

That's two separate issues, Mike.

1. Using his disability and disease for political gain. Were the political gain unrelated to the disability and disease, I might agree. In this case, of course, there's a direct correlation between the two. "THIS is what we're trying to prevent," in my opinion, is a wholly appropriate statement to make.

2. Through misrepresentation and lies. I agree completely, but would argue there was neither misrepresentation nor lies.

Certainly, the symptoms of Parkinson's weren't exaggerated or misrepresented in any way. If anything, the demonstration was middle-of-the-road as tens of thousands of people with far more severe symptoms could attest, just as there are many with less severe symptoms. I don't think people on either end of the spectrum look pathetic.

I don't agree with Fox's stand on Federally funded stem cell research, but then, I also don't agree with our government's stand on restricting stem cell research either. I wouldn't characterize either stand as a lie, though. We all have opinions and no one can accurately predict the results of scientific research. Fox may be wrong, but he certainly has no reason to lie and every reason to tell the truth as he sees it. He only wants results.

And please, Mike, save the partisan kvetching for someone who cares. Whether I'm listening to Michael J. Fox or Rush Limbaugh, I'm going to judge their words based on their personal integrity and ability to persuade, not on their supposed affixations with Hollywood, the mega-wealthy, Liberals or Democrats. I don't care what their Zodiac sign is either. It's baggage I have no intention of carrying just because someone hands it to me.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
16 posted 2006-10-28 05:17 PM


As far as no misrepresentation or lies are concerned, Ron, I refer to the fact that there are two types of stem cell research, the embryonic and the adult. I'm certainly no expert on the subject but from my understanding the research Bush is against is not the research that would conceiveably cure Parkinson's. Actually, it is a known fact that Bush has allocated more funds to stem cell research than any other President.

As far as you not  being affected by the ads based on movie stars making them, I have no doubt you wouldn't be but, for every you, there are hundreds who would and are. The ads are for them, not you.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
17 posted 2006-10-28 05:20 PM


We can have an honest, healthy and thorough discussion about this particular stem cell research ad, in arguing whether Michael J. Fox has genuinely been in a state of dyskinesia or not, which I would highly encourage, and I believe ultimately though few minds would ever be changed in the end, for good measure concerns such as this are good to talk about.

NBC10.com: October 27, 2006

Anyhow, I believe beyond the issue of how truthful or deliberate his trembling was in the minds of the general public, most have recognized this ad as a harmless, well-intended statement, where a couple new polls I've seen reflect a strong majority of Americans finding these ads either "extremely believable" or "believable.", including 93 percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Independents and 57 percent of Republicans.

What I am explictly pointing out here is that the GOP also exploits not only individuals, but events in our nation's history, for political gain as well, as is especially made clear in the second campaign ad example I pointed out in my initial post regarding that The stakes are high!" and only voting Republican will keep the nation from being attacked by Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri again, when the facts are, no matter how much the likes of Mehlman and Rove and Cheney try to re-write history, we were all united under one belief that we must go after those directly responsible for attacking us on 9/11, and as evident in the votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, we offered the President authorization to go after those directly responsible for 9/11, as well as heading into Afghanistan to deal with the Taliban who have a history of providing shelter and cover to al-Qaeda.

That latest ad epitomizes how shameless the Republican National Committee's current leadership and management are in exploiting this day felt by all Americans like Lyndon B. Johnson exploited another tragedy in 1964 with his "Daisy" ad, all for the purpose of maintaining their majorities ten days from today, deceptively declaring themselves the sole party that takes heart on the issue of the war on terror.

I'm not quite sure how you've reacted to that particular ad, but I do believe it is telling that in the thread "Time to beat the Bush......again" you admitted a couple things; 1) that you have become a "strong anti-Democrat" and 2) the only reason why the GOP resorts to political attack ad tactics "comes as a RESPONSE to Democratic attacks."

Those two quotations are what, without a doubt in my mind, believe that you are no less biased than any of the rest of us here. It's certainly not a bad thing to be biased and such, as I still respect and enjoy talking with you and everyone here; I'm just suggesting that the best way in dealing with this truth is to make an increasing effort to become more flexibly-minded in discussions, and given that I have seen no starting posts from you that are ever critical of the current dominating majority party and your critiques of it are seldom and briefly internalized in particular threads, I feel as though sometimes your opinions emulate talking points from radio personalities and such, especially given how many fathers, mothers and leading influential figures of the conservative movement, including William Buckley, George Will, Richard Viguerie, John McIntyre and Peggy Noonan have all found the courage to disagree and criticize the leadership of their party, from the big-spending to the deficits and debt to the intrusion of big government on civil liberties.

The bottom line is, I believe both parties have failed leadership that succumbs to elite interests above the middle class and working American families. I have criticized Nancy Pelosi not because she's from San Francisco, but because she appears so insincere and artificial when she claims she's going to "drain the swamp" and such. I look back on her record and see that her team has never filed an ethics complaint for instance, and that strikes me that she'll only go after corruption if it's GOP corruption, which really makes her no better than Dennis Hastert, who is a joke of a House Speaker as it is.

For the record, I'm NOT an "anti-Republican", as I believe there's still hope in the party in that it can find its roots again and return to the traditional, organic conservative values of state rights, small government and fiscal responsibility again, and though I may still disagree with them on issues like banning gay marriage, I would still greatly respect the for their principles.

What I'm against in the GOP are the elite, neoconservative influences that have hijacked the party, which have literally intimidated the more moderate members of the party and have placed the influences of corporations and fundamentalist religious socialists over the hard-working American family and the middle class.

I believe the GOP has strayed far from its roots, under the influences of DeLay, Boehner, Frist, Rove, Robertson and others, and though I have an unfavorable view of the party's current setting, my heart is open to honor candidates who stand by their principles of tradition and roots in the party.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
18 posted 2006-10-30 03:23 AM


Not that I'm an expert on the subject of stem-cell research either, but:

'In addition, several laboratories have been successful in developing methods to induce embryonic stem cells to differentiate into cells with many of the functions of DA neurons.'

'The plain fact is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using adult stem cells and zero using embryonic stem cells.'

Huh? I'm confused here.

from http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem12.htm

"Researchers began using adult stem cells from bone marrow back in 1960. It was only in 1998 that other researchers were able to isolate and cultivate embryo stem cells. Adult stem cell research thus has an almost four decade head start compared to embryo-derived stem cells. As of 2004-Fall, promising trials are underway using adult stem cells, while stem cells from embryos are still being experimented upon in the laboratory."

My understanding is that both types of research offer benefits. Adult stem cells are not able to differentiate as fully as embryonic cells- meaning embryonic cells can become a greater variety of different cell types. While embryonic stem cells have more versatility, they may be more prone to becoming cancerous. Plus, the obvious ethical issues.

But- I don't really feel like getting too deep into the stem-cell debate. I simply feel that if a) fertility clinics have unused embryos (or zygotes) which will eventually meet a demise anyway, why not let them go to some good? and b) if I can abort an embryo or even a fetus for whatever reason I choose under current law, why can't science do so, for research which will help people? It's a no-brainer for me.

Like Ron, I ultimately see no point raking Fox over the coals- did he withold meds? Were his doses upped for other appearences in order to minimize the dyskinesia for a TV appearance- and then tapered back down? The point is he's representative- of people both better and worse off than him. And I also don't think he's some hapless victim of the Democrats, who gave a good evil Bwa-hah-ha laugh after filming. Parkinson's doesn't make you naive, last time I checked.

And just as a side note- you know why I wouldn't feel in the least bit sorry if Rush Limbaugh became disabled? It's because he's a jerk. I'd feel bad for Bush, even though I don't particularly like him, and you know why? Because he doesn't publicly mock people with illnesses.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
19 posted 2006-10-30 09:02 AM


LOL! Well, hush, you must be wishing disability on one heck of a lot of people then, if being a jerk is enough to warrant it....interesting philosophy.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
20 posted 2006-10-30 09:29 AM


I think you twisted Amy's words, Mike. Not feeling sorry for someone isn't quite the same thing as wishing a disability upon them.

Personally, I would probably still sympathize some with Limbaugh were he to be diagnosed with Parkinson's, but my sympathy would also be offset by a sense of cosmic justice.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
21 posted 2006-10-30 11:24 AM


Ok, I'll accept that, Ron, and apologize  to Amy. I think there  is a fine line there but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.

Your statement, though, I would take issue with. To my knowledge Rush criticized the manner in which Fox presented the commercial, by either willingly or being talked into laying off the medication to make it as dramatic as possible. He certainly never laughed at Michael  J. for  having Parkinson's and your cosmic justice would not bejust.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
22 posted 2006-10-30 01:11 PM


Judging by your previous comments, you also take issue not only with your belief that Michael J. Fox acted, but simply because he ran ads on the issue of stem cell research that happen to be favorable toward Democratic candidates.

To touch further on that, on June 14, 2004, Rush Limbaugh accused Democrats of trying to "capitalize on" Nancy Reagan's "suffering and pain" on his program. Here's the transcripted excerpt of that edition:

*

"The way I put this is I don't think that Ronald Reagan would ever agree to embryos, human beings, being used as spare parts. Which is what we're talking about here.

But unfortunately, it's not about Reagan, it's about Nancy. And -- and what the Democrats are trying to do is capitalize on her suffering and pain. Alzheimer's is a charity that she has, obviously, associated herself with. And the Liberals are simply trying to do -- take the occasion of Reagan's death, and -- Alzheimer's, to put another chink in the armor of the -- of the pro-life crowd, by saying, "Well, look. Even Nancy Reagan realizes the reality here. We got to do this. And she looked at her husband and who her husband was and forth."


*

USA Today: June 8, 2004

Of course, 1) Reagan's death inspired bi-partisan support for expanding stem cell research, where 58 senators, including 14 Republicans, on the day before his death signed a letter to President George W. Bush urging him to expand stem cell research.

In addition, on April 28, 2004, 206 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including 36 Republicans that included "antiabortion stalwart Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.)" signed a similar letter to President Bush.

And 2) as previously touched on, Fox is also open to endorsing such Republican candidates who share his understanding of the issue, as he did for Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter in 2004.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
23 posted 2006-10-30 03:40 PM


Interesting link, Noah. Here are two parts that stand out the most to me:

(1) But living human embryos are destroyed to produce stem cells.

(2) But McClellan said Tuesday that "for the first time, the government is exploring the promise of stem-cell research. But (Bush) believes that we don't have to cross a certain moral threshold" to do so. "He does believe that we should not create life for the sole purpose of destroying it."


If you recall, way wayback when, we were discussing Bush and I mentioned a few things to Aenimal that I disagreed with Bush on. Stem cell research was one of them and I still support it, as long as it doesn't  negate point #2 listed above. Bush does not want life created to kill it for its  stem cells. Is that such a ridiculous position to take? If there is any other way than that, it has my support.

That is not the point of my involvement in this thread, however. It's about how Michael J. Fox and his illness is being used and portrayed in  this ad in a political manuever. I know I shouldn't be surprised after Cindy Sheehan but they always seem to find a way to reach new lows. I'm waiting for the ad  which shows pictures of a California family of four  slaughtered in their home with  a caption underrneath which reads " With Bush  not getting tough enough on closing our borders, this could  be a common sight in the future!"

Wouldn't surprise me a bit.......

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
24 posted 2006-10-30 06:15 PM


wouldn't surprise me either, Mike... no more than it would have to see it or something analogous while Clinton was still president.

don' matter who be in office, democrat, republican, black, white, male, female... someone is going to be doing some bashing and blaming... it's part of the job and the price of a bright spotlight, eh?

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
25 posted 2006-10-30 06:52 PM


No, Michael, it isn't a ridiculous position for him to take, and I sympathize very much with Bush's concern on this issue.

Although I believe in both stem cell research studies, I too hope that someday, as science continues to improve the quality of medicine and technology and such, that we won't even have to destroy the human embryo to conduct the research and seek these many potential cures, just as I hope that someday we will no longer have to resort to any sort of abortion once science and such finds a way in ensuring a better alternative.

I'm sure this is something we all desire to see within our lifetimes; where we can all comfortably ensure that help is on the way for everyone without also having to compromise any form of life, and that is understandably the national debate as it is; whether it is more moral or immoral to make some sort of sacrifice in the hope of seeking an opportunity to save others from their own inhibitions.

Though I wholeheartedly disagree with his recent veto regarding this issue, I do understand very much where Bush is coming from here, and I also highly respect that while he has his disagreements with many on the issue, he also is respectful toward their concerns.

*

By the way, I certainly hope we won't be seeing that kind of vitriolic border security ad anytime.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
26 posted 2006-10-30 07:57 PM


quote:

That is not the point of my involvement in this thread, however. It's about how Michael J. Fox and his illness is being used and portrayed in  this ad in a political manuever. I know I shouldn't be surprised after Cindy Sheehan but they always seem to find a way to reach new lows. I'm waiting for the ad  which shows pictures of a California family of four  slaughtered in their home with  a caption underrneath which reads " With Bush  not getting tough enough on closing our borders, this could  be a common sight in the future!"



Is your disapproval uniform Mike?  Do you object when Fox does the same thing campaigning for Arlen Specter?

They always find a way to reach new lows?  THEY?  You mean politicians right?  Because we know that the Repbulican National Committee has admited to the 'Southern Strategy' -- race baiting southern voters after the civil rights movement to lure white Democrats into Republican ranks -- and the ad they've put up against Harold Ford is despicable.  

I don't see what's so low about a guy with a disease campaigning for someone who wants to fund activities that could possibly one day offer a cure for said disease -- but, about '
faking' it or even going off his meds -- niether is the case.  

You point to his performance on Boston Legal -- but don't recognize that on television one can make it look as if a person is blasting Cylons out of space -- they EDIT Mike -- they wait till Fox hits a pocket where he's moderately in control and work then.  Most of the country never even realized JFK could barely walk because of the way he was telecast and photographed.

In his bid for re-election Republican Chris Chocola of Indiana is putting his own Cindy Shehan on the air to talk about how bad and unpatriotic Democrat Joe Donelly is -- but, I imagine if it was your district you'd find a way to justify that.

The embryos that are destroyed in stem cell research are the embryos created for invitro fertilization that are destroyed anyway.  Under no circumstances are embryos being created for the purpose of research.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
27 posted 2006-10-30 09:10 PM


quote:
To my knowledge Rush criticized the manner in which Fox presented the commercial, by either willingly or being talked into laying off the medication to make it as dramatic as possible. He certainly never laughed at Michael  J. for  having Parkinson's and your cosmic justice would not bejust.

No, he didn't laugh, Mike, nor do I recall anyone suggesting he did. And, of course, you seem to be forgetting that the medication possibility was only fifty percent of Limbaugh's either/or suggestion? Limbaugh essentially told Fox to stop acting like a spaz. That his comments were made through utter ignorance only reinforces the justice of perhaps acquiring a deeper understanding the hard way. No, Limbaugh doesn't deserve to be afflicted with an incurable disease like Parkinson's. Then again, neither did Fox.

If this thread is all about ugly politics, one certainly need look no further than Rush Limbaugh. Were I a little more partisan, Mike, I might wonder, as you did, whether he was duped into being a jerk? Instead, I'll content myself with wondering why any Republican would need to look for enemies when they already have friends like Rush Limbaugh?



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
28 posted 2006-10-31 11:11 AM


Well, Ron, I have to tell you that Limbaugh is certainly a blowhard at times! A self-confessed one at that...but he is certainly an entertainer. An enemy of the Republican party? Hardly. There is SOME reason why he is the  number one listened to talk show in America although you may argue that most of America which listens to talk radio are idiots. Seen Air America around lately? Oh, that's right. They filed for bankruptcy last month. The were to great Left hope to unseat Limbaugh. There are actually reasons why he is popular. First,he's entertaining, as I said. Second, you hear things from him the news reports won't give you or downplays or ignores. You want the economic figures or the stock market new highs? They get little hoopla in the newspapers or biased news reports. You want to hear how it was so ridiculous for the Democrats to scream about foreign ownership of ports since the majority of ports already WERE foreign owned? He tells you. You want to hear how dumb it is to scream about wiretapping or checking phone records of suspected terrorists in an effort to go after Bush? He tells you. You want to hear how putting panties ove a prisoner's head does not equate to beheading an American soldier on videotape and transmitting it to the world? He says that, too. When he points out that Bush's tax cuts and economic philosophy was exactly the same as Kennedy's and proves it with Kennedy's own words, the Democrats hate it but the public loves it. When he says the tax cuts are good for the economy, people agree. When he ridicules Jesse Jackson, people nod their heads yes. When he shows how the democrats are trying to use the recent e-mail acandal to influence the upcoming elections and yet turn their backs on any democratic scandals, of which there have been many, people can see it.

Third, he is upbeat. He is high on America. He loves the country and projects it. That's what happened to Air America and every other democratic news medium I've heard. They only speak of negatives - what is wrong with America. They complain but offer no alternatives. They condemn and never praise and give no plan of their own. They scream out to impeach Bush, impeach Rice, kick out Rumsfeld, impeach Hastert....that's their message. They have no one who can relate to the  public. Al Frankel? From everything I've heard, even the Democrats have a hard time stomaching him.

Yep, Rush can be a real buffoon but he relates to one heck of a lot of people in this country by speaking out and saying it like it is. He's gone after Republicans quite a bit lately, also, and he has criticized Bush on many levels, from spending to the Iraq situation. He does have  a good message, though,and a message that normal, common, everyday people can relate to and one can feel upbeat about the country from listening to him. The Democrats have no such message and that's why they continue to lose.

Rush needs to be taken with a grain of salt, I know, but when one ignores the self-congratulatory praises he heaps on himself in a comical manner and one accepts the fact that he is prejudiced against the philosophy of the Democratic party, one can find interesting grains of truth in what he has to say, grains you won't find on PMSNBC, as he likes to call them.  

An enemy of the republican party? Not a chance but he is certainly a thorn in the side of the Democratic party and that's why they give him so much attention. I feel pretty certain that they WISH he were a Democrat!

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (10-31-2006 11:49 AM).]

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
29 posted 2006-10-31 01:28 PM


Uh, never quite said I wanted him to be disabled... but when I see video of him sarcastically cutting up Fox for his mannerisms and imitating them by flailing around just to show how silly he thinks Fox looks... it really irritates me. On a human level, of course I don't want to see anyone sick or disabled, and I was probably exaggerating when I said I wouldn't feel the least bit sorry... I would probably feel a little bit sorry, like, if I was there with him, but I also see sick people every day at work, so my perspective is a little flawed. Let me put it this way: when you see so much suffering, it doesn't all get through, and I do not feel sorry for everyone I take care of. It's just the nature of healthcare- you lose some of your sensitivity to human suffering. If I fawned and cried over everyone in pain, I'd have no time to take care of people. The thing is, the ones who do get through and register on my radar are not the ones who would mock others- they are usually the kind ones, the person with lung cancer who never smoked a day in her life or the gunshot victim who never hurt a fly... not that smokers deserve cancer, but the sad truth is, I don't feel quite as sorry for them. Is that right? No, but it's the truth, and I'm not going to lie and say it isn't.

As far as finding grains of truth in Limbaugh's program, I'll admit to usually only hearing the outrageous claims that filter through to mainstream media (not just his concervative audience). But he strikes me as a conservative counterpart to Micheal Moore- opportunistic of any information that supports his point or his conviction, and turing a blind eye to those that don't.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
30 posted 2006-10-31 01:53 PM


Yeah, though I'm certainly no fan of Rush Limbaugh, all in all I agree with your theories on why Limbaugh has achieved the level of popularity he has, and why he has widely influenced public discourse within the last three decades.

I would add as a fourth reason that he strikes the curiosity of people from both sides of the aisle (same with O'Reilly). I actually believe quite a bit of his weekly net audience are Democrats and those who actually staunchly disagree with him, who tune in out of curiosity to hear what inflammatory piece of rhetoric he'll conjure up next, and eyeing him like a hawk in understanding his usual on-air personality demeanor and format so the Democrats can adopt his approach as a left-wing equivalent of it, which in fact I think Ed Schultz has attempted to do, deeming himself the "Rush Limbaugh of the Left".

Just a note regarding your third point, however. Limbaugh, too, has resorted to frequent negative attitudes as well whenever Democrats were in power. In fact, immediately when Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, Limbaugh started the "America Held Hostage" segment, which is telling in that, though I certainly sympathize with everyone sick of all the Democratic Party's corruption in Congress at the time, he never even wanted to give Clinton a chance to begin with and had a biased grudge against him from the start, simply because he shared the name of the party that was tainting Congress.

So essentially Limbaugh has been exactly during the 90's what Air America is right now; spending all one's breath seeking retribution on political opposition without declaring a vision for a positive alternative; calling to impeach Clinton, making up all kinds of conspiracy theories about the Clinton family (such as Hillary being involved in the 1993 suicide of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster) like some Air America personalities do about the GOP being behind Pall Wellstone's death, and so-forth. Moreover, he too demonizes those he doesn't ideologically agree with, including saying, "What's good for Al Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party.", once calling abortion rights activists "feminazis", and even saying outrageous things like referring to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib as "blowing some steam off".

*

Despite my strong opinion that Limbaugh resorts to his own brand of negativity just as much as the Jeanane Garofalos of Air America, I do think his entertaining persona and his tempering of curiosity explains his wide influence on the airwaves today, even when I think his program is about as biased as it can get.

I think it's just that same sort of appeal that explains the rising popularity of Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, who hosts "Countdown". Being a former ESPN sportscaster and anchor personality, and a great fan of sports in general, Olbermann has a very unique anchor personality, which I like to think of as the Jacques Servin or Igor Vamos of cable news, welded into the dress suit of a contemporary Edward Murrow and straightened up with the mandarin collar of a Broadway aficionado.

I think Olbermann has slowly but consistently continued to strike the curiosity of the general public in that he too touches up on harder-news stories most other media outlets won't ever cover (like going into deep detail of the recently-signed Military Commissions Act and its implications to the definition of torture and executive power, and the growing KBR-Halliburton scandals) while also balancing the serious news with a lighter news segment known as "Oddball" and airing positive stories as well including the Amish community and their forgiveness in ligh of the recent tragedy. Also, I think there's an appeal in that he treats his guests with respect, in that he never interrupts them in the middle of any question (including John Ashcroft two weeks ago) and lets them say what they want to say, unlike what personalities like O'Reilly do in interrupting individuals he doesn't agree with.

Olbermann, too, can certainly be inflammatory at times, particularly in his "Special Comments" where when something the current Administration especially troubles him in the news, like with the signing of the Military Commissions Act without habeas corpus guarantees or the sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina, he dedicates 7-10 minutes in an essay sort of format in a no-prisoners sort of anchor approach, criticizing its leadership while also documenting other historical accounts of similar negligence.

Those "Special Comments" are tough indeed, and I don't agree with his tone at times, but in the general sense the main points he makes in them are quite convincing and appear thoughtfully researched, and I think they explain how his ratings have really soared in recent months, standing out among an otherwise poorly-rated network; much of the American public believes the Bush Administration is not being fully honest with the American people on Iraq and other issues, the're not hearing what they want to hear from them, and so they curiously hear Olbermann out, regardless of how much they agree or disagree with him, because he provides some interested grains of truth that get expressed minimally in the rest of the cable news environment.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
31 posted 2006-10-31 08:30 PM


quote:

This ability to believe is rather weak in some circles, above all in those with money and education. They may trust more in pure cold reason than a glowing idealistic heart. Our so-called intellectuals do not like to hear this, but it is true anyway. They know so much that in the end they do not know what to do with their wisdom. They can see the past, but not much of the present, and nothing at all of the future. Their imagination is insufficient to deal with a distant goal in a way such that one already thinks it achieved.

They were also unable to believe in the victory of National Socialism while the National Socialist movement was still fighting for power. They are as little able today to believe in the greatness of our national German future. They perceive only what they can see, but not what is happening, and what will happen.

That is why their carping criticisms generally focus on laughable trivialities. Whenever some unavoidable difficulty pops up, the kind of thing that always happens, they are immediately inclined to doubt everything and to throw the baby out with the bath water. To them difficulties are not there to be mastered, but rather to be surrendered to.

One cannot make history with such quivering people. They are only chaff in God's breath. Thankfully, they are only a thin intellectual or social upper class, particularly in the case of Germany. They are not an upper class in the sense that they govern the nation, but rather more a fact of nature like the bubbles of fat that always float on the surface of things.

Today, they seek to give good advice to National Socialist Germany from abroad. We do not have to ask them for it. They focus all their energies on the small problems that always are there, complain about the cost and believe that crises and unavoidable tensions are on the way. They are the complainers who never tire of bringing National Socialist Germany before the so-called court of world opinion. In the past they always found willing and thankful followers. Today, they only have a few backward intellectual Philistines in their camp.

The people want nothing to do with them. These Philistines are the 8/10 of one percent of the German people who have always said "no", who always say "no" now, and who will always say "no" in the future. We cannot win them over, and do not even want to. They said "no" when Austria joined the Reich; they said "no" when the Sudetenland followed. They always say "no" as a matter of principle.

One does not need to take them all that seriously. They do not like us, but they do not like themselves any better. Why should we waste words on them? They are always living in the past and believe in success only when it has already happened, but then waste no time in claiming credit for it.

The people want nothing to do with these intellectual complainers. The year 1938 was filled with great and sometimes unnerving tension. But they are delighted at the close of this year with the Führer's great historical successes.




Joseph Goebbels
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb16.htm

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
32 posted 2006-10-31 08:45 PM


quote:

There is no doubt that some people have taken pleasure in hoarding coffee. They did this in part to ensure their own supply — as if coffee were a necessity of life — but also in part to make difficulties for the National Socialist government. For example, a woman from Berlin's better circles in the Wilmersdorf district was caught with eight quarter pounds of coffee that she had bought from various shops. She explained she wanted to be sure she had enough. Well, that's one way of looking at it.

Such people are naturally only a ridiculous minority, but they are in the position to damage our people's good name. And it is always the same people. They give reluctantly to the Winter Relief drive, they abuse the National Socialist government and the National Socialist movement, oppose everything that we do, lose heart in every crisis, find the party block warden in their building an annoyance, are convinced adherents to confessional movements, love political jokesters, and get their news from foreign radio stations or newspapers.

Naturally they do not think it beneath their dignity to enjoy the benefits of the National Socialist state. Their thanks is to cheerfully vote no in the referendum to approve Austria's joining the Reich. They have no idea what national discipline means. Their political behavior is disgraceful. Everything that comes from abroad is chic, everything that we do is shocking.



Joseph Goebbels
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb22.htm

You see... what Limbaugh does is hardly new -- you make sure that your opposition don't love the country -- they don't even love themselves.... he had the best teacher.

What's shocking is that so many people believe that loving America is abandoning Habeus Corpus and Torturing people because a few men said so.

Yes, I'm PROUD to criticize what America does -- when what it does isn't AMERICAN!

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
33 posted 2006-10-31 10:07 PM


Typical response but you can save your energy on the "People are for torture and abandoning the constitution" because it doesn't fly and people - honest, caring and even moral people- are not going to don the yoke of guilt you so freely try to adorn them with. Habeus corpus is alive and well, undamaged by the logical and prudent steps taken by Bush to uncover terrorist communications, and no Americans are screaming to have terrorists drawn and quartered.

Yes, I'm PROUD to criticize what America does...

America cannot be criticized except by people who despise what America basically stands for. America is a country made up of individuals. It's the individuals that can be criticized. That's why Limbaugh criticized Clinton and that's why Democrats criticize Bush. If you  want to claim that they all take a page out of the Goebbels playbook, go ahead. I've seen you stretch farther...

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
34 posted 2006-10-31 10:14 PM


But once again Mike -- you're wrong.

There is a collective 'America does' to be criticized -- the official acts that are carried out in the name of the people.  

I can criticize you.  I can criticize Bush.  I can criticize the government -- which, is America.

Mike -- you're a propagandist too.

Me... I just look biased -- because the facts are biased.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
35 posted 2006-10-31 10:27 PM


I'm not going to let your 'honest, caring, and moral' people barb pass either Mike.

Propaganda can't exist without an audience that's ready to consume it.  People take pleasure in hearing their own biases reinforced and put into pretty words.

Just like this instance;

quote:

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html  




If people don't have an inherent racist element to thier personality -- this strategy wouldn't work on them.  Are they moral?  Are they decent hardworking people?  Sure, for the most part -- but, that fella that most of these people claim as their personal savior says -- none of them are 'good'.

We all have our areas don't we Mike?

And, it is specifically because I happen to LOVE what America is supposed to stand for --that I criticize what America does when it falls short.

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
36 posted 2006-10-31 10:32 PM


"Habeus corpus is alive and well, undamaged by the logical and prudent steps taken by Bush to uncover terrorist communications, and no Americans are screaming to have terrorists drawn and quartered. "

Mike, I see you have still not REALLY read the war crimes act.  


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
37 posted 2006-10-31 11:29 PM


Ok, I'll confess that I haven't the foggiest what your 50 year old example is supposed to represent unless you are trying to say that people support Bush's actions because, deep down, they are all actually people who support torture and destroying the constitution. If that is the case, you are missing (or ignoring) the whole point. People do not believe that Bush's actions on moving quickly to set up communications on suspected terrorists was either wrong or detrimental to the constitution. Actually the only people who do seem to be Democrats using it as a another attack on the administration. Has Bush  been brought up on charges for it? Censured for it? Does anyone even discuss it any more? No, it was just the complaint du jour that didn't fly and went away. People do not either believe that sleep deprivation or loud music or even threats used against a terrorist to extract information that could save American lives is torturous. If you want to claim that they do because they have a streak inside them which condones torture and they support whoever reinforces that feeling, you are so far off-base that you're in a different ballpark. They are simply smart enough to recognize the tactics and don't buy them.

I can criticize the government -- which, is America.

I know a lot of people who would disagree with that statement. I may be one

True story that I'll try not to bore you with. In 1974, while living in Venezuela, I came back to the states to bowl in the PBA Masters held in Indianapolis. An old Venezuelan married couple (good  friends of mine)accompanied me. After the tournament I decided to drive to St. Louis, my home town, to get some things from my parents house to take back with me. The Venezuelan couple came along. They were in complete awe staring at the farmlands and towns we passed....how neat everything looked. My town had 110 people. We stopped at the tavern for a burger and a beer. The couple were so amazed at the friendliness displayed. They told me they had no idea what America looked like, having only had seen Miami and New York and never the midwest. I smiled and told them to forget Miami and New York...THIS was America.

Actually I believe that. America is it's people. The government? Sure, we elect them they are supposed to be representative of what we believe in but some of them are elected with less than half of the popular vote. We are given two choices and told to pick the lesser of two evils....and does it ever change? Every election year for the past half-century we hear the same promises and the same rhetoric that we know we will hear four years later. Are these people America? True, they can dictate what affects the lives of every citizen...but are they really America? We tolerate them because our system requires their presence and we hope that they won't get us into too much trouble but....America? My small little town and the people in it gets my vote for that title.

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
38 posted 2006-10-31 11:32 PM


Hey, my post got deleted. So with that, I'll just say, Mike I might not agree with all that you say, but I think you are a great debator. Hopefully, saying that is not enough to get my words rejected.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
39 posted 2006-10-31 11:39 PM


Yes, I just noticed  that, too, JCP. Thanks for your kind words
iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
40 posted 2006-11-01 12:08 PM


Mike, I said the war crimes act, when indeed, I should have said the act which repeals parts of the war crimes act and that is the military commissions act of 2006 signed into law just last week, I believe.  There are many articles on the net about how that affects the right to habeas corpus and, obviously, you have not studied the act.  I spent one night reading it and my stomach rolled inside me.  I believe this is what Local Rebel is referring to in his comparison about how one political movement accomplished what it did through propaganda, misinformation and control.  Read this:  
Habeas Corpus Suspended  Maybe you will take the words of people who are trained to interpret the constitution and law as truth.  Then again, maybe you won't.  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
41 posted 2006-11-01 12:15 PM


Your stomach rolled  inside you reading the act that repeals parts of the war crimes act???? That's intense1
iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
42 posted 2006-11-01 12:20 PM


No, Mike, while reading the military commissions act of 2006, not the war crimes act of 1996.  As far as I know, the 1996 act still acknowledged our international treaties (the Geneva Convention, specifically).  Still not going to read it, are you?

PS to Reb:  I'd like to see if there are any signing orders tacked onto it.  Are you aware of any?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
43 posted 2006-11-01 12:35 PM


Well, I just read the complete article from the link you sent and my stomach hasn't turned yet...sorry. If you find something there that makes you physically sick then that's up to you. We all have our own rights to our own opinions, of course.

The internement of Japanese in the forties was certainly a blow to habeus corpus. It happened 60 years ago. Did it destroy the constitution and throw the country into chaos? Tums may help....


iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
44 posted 2006-11-01 02:47 AM


I was not referring to the article turning my stomach, Mike.  I was referring to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which I am waiting for you to read so we can have a meaningful conversation regarding whether or not habeas corpus has been suspended.  
iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
45 posted 2006-11-01 03:22 AM


In case you don't have time to read the 90+ page Act, Mike, here are some relevant points which I pulled from Wikipedia for you:  

quote:

"The Act changes pre-existing law to explicitly disallow the invocation of the Geneva Conventions when executing the writ of habeas corpus or in other civil actions [Act sec. 5(a)]. This provision applies to all cases pending at the time the Act is enacted, as well as to all such future cases.

If the government chooses to bring a prosecution against the detainee, a military commission is convened for this purpose. The following rules are some of those established for trying alien unlawful enemy combatants.

‘‘(b) NOTICE TO ACCUSED.—Upon the swearing of the charges and specifications in accordance with subsection (a), the accused shall be informed of the charges against him as soon as practicable.

A civilian defense attorney may not be used unless the attorney has been determined to be eligible for access to classified information that is classified at the level Secret or higher. [10 U.S.C. sec. 949c(b)(3)(D)]
A finding of Guilty by a particular commission requires only a two-thirds majority of the members of the commission present at the time the vote is taken [10 U.S.C. sec. 949m(a)]
In General- No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories. [Act sec. 5(a)]
As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. [Act sec. 6(a)(3)(A)]
No person may, without his consent, be tried by a military commission under this chapter a second time for the same offense. [10 U.S.C. sec. 949h(a)]. "


Wiki also shows arguments against the Act:  

quote

"A number of legal scholars and Congressional members - including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) - have said that the habeas provision of the Act violates a clause of the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention "shall not be suspended" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion."[18]

The Act has also been denounced by critics who assert that its wording makes possible the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President.[19] Indeed, the wording of section 948b[20] of the act appears to explicitly contradict the Third Geneva Convention of which the United States is currently a signatory.

In the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario:

Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, I am a U.S. citizen. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.[21]

One has described the Act as "the legalization of the José Padilla treatment" - referring to the American citizen who was declared an unlawful enemy combatant and then imprisoned for three years before finally being charged with a lesser crime than was originally alleged.[22] A legal brief filed on Padilla's behalf alleges that during this time he was subjected to sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and enforced stress positions.[23]

Amnesty International said that the Act "contravenes human rights principles."[24] An editorial in The New York Times described the Act as "a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts."[25]

"American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said, "The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions." [26]

The law has also been criticized for allegedly giving a retroactive, nine-year immunity to U.S. officials who authorized, ordered, or committed potential acts of abuse on detainees.[27]"


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
46 posted 2006-11-01 06:28 AM


quote:
People do not believe that Bush's actions on moving quickly to set up communications on suspected terrorists was either wrong or detrimental to the constitution. Actually the only people who do seem to be Democrats using it as a another attack on the administration.

I'm not a Democrat, Mike?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
47 posted 2006-11-01 03:48 PM


My apologies...

"Democrats....and Ron"

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
48 posted 2006-11-01 04:37 PM


No apology for me, Mike?  I'm not one either.  

[This message has been edited by iliana (11-01-2006 05:49 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
49 posted 2006-11-01 08:53 PM


LOL! Ok, Democrats,  Ron, Iliana and I'll even throw in Noah for good measure
Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Political Attack Ads & eventually Michael J Fox

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary