democrats= Tokyo rose

[Wacka]

Today, I heard someone talking about how the main talking points of the dems on the war in Iraq parallel the main points Tokyo Rose made to lower American morale in WWII.

The main points of her propoganda were:

 

1) The president is lying to you.

2) You can't win the war.

3) The war is being fought for the big corporations.

 

Sound familiar???

[VABills]

United we stand, divided we fall.

[Simon]

Today, I heard someone talking about  how the main talking points of the dems on the war in Iraq parallel the main points Tokyo Rose made to lower American morale in WWII.

The main points of her propoganda were:

 

1) The president is lying to you.

2) You can't win the war.

3) The war is being fought for the big corporations.

 

Sound familiar???

537463[/snapback]

 

1) Bzzzz! Wrong - The only ones who believe he's telling the truth are Republicans

2) Bzzzz! Wrong - Winning the war on terror is Republican propoganda

3) Bzzzz! Wrong - Because oil interests stand to profit, the war is not to their benefit?

 

Three strikes - You're out!!!

[Wacka]

You totally missed the point. These were tactics Tokoyo Rose used. I can name numerous instances where the dems have said just these things.

 

In fact you just did.

[Johnny Coli]

Today, I heard someone talking about  how the main talking points of the dems on the war in Iraq parallel the main points Tokyo Rose made to lower American morale in WWII.

The main points of her propoganda were:

 

1) The president is lying to you.

2) You can't win the war.

3) The war is being fought for the big corporations.

 

Sound familiar???

537463[/snapback]

Sounds like your corrugated tin shack is picking up an old Edward R Murrow broadcast.

[smokinandjokin]

United we stand, divided we fall.

537491[/snapback]

 

Bush divides the masses more than any president I've seen in my lifetime. The guy is a clown, with some shady, conniving, bastards behind him. United we stand? If it's behind Bush, you'd have about 35% the country united.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Bush divides the masses more than any president I've seen in my lifetime.  The guy is a clown, with some shady, conniving, bastards behind him.  United we stand?  If it's behind Bush, you'd have about 35% the country united.

537947[/snapback]

 

Answer this one question honestly if you would:

 

Do you think his approval rating, low as it is, has ANYTHING to do with a one-sided media campaign against him? I've enver seen a public figure so universally reviled and dogged by the press.

 

IMO they do have an agenda WRT Bush, and I'm not a big Bush backer.

[Mickey]

Answer this one question honestly if you would:

 

Do you think his approval rating, low as it is, has ANYTHING to do with a one-sided media campaign against him? I've enver seen a public figure so universally reviled and dogged by the press.

 

IMO they do have an agenda WRT Bush, and I'm not a big Bush backer.

537957[/snapback]

Washington Times, Fox, Wall Street Journal, Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, etc, etc, etc. This President has been getting a reach around from a lot of "the media" for 5 years now. Even the New York Times, when it came to WMD's was stroking the administration raw with Judy Miller and her pre-war reporting.

 

The press didn't make up Abu Grhaib, the lack of WMD's, renditions, the insurgency and its lethality, "mission accomplished", secret foreign prisons, "last throes", torture and now illegal wire taps.

[VABills]

Washington Times, Fox, Wall Street Journal, Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, etc, etc, etc.  This President has been getting a reach around from a lot of "the media" for 5 years now.  Even the New York Times, when it came to WMD's was stroking the administration raw with Judy Miller and her pre-war reporting.

 

The press didn't make up Abu Grhaib, the lack of WMD's, renditions, the insurgency and its lethality, "mission accomplished", secret foreign prisons, "last throes", torture and now illegal wire taps.

537979[/snapback]

They were authorized by FISA.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Washington Times, Fox, Wall Street Journal, Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, etc, etc, etc.  This President has been getting a reach around from a lot of "the media" for 5 years now.  Even the New York Times, when it came to WMD's was stroking the administration raw with Judy Miller and her pre-war reporting.

 

The press didn't make up Abu Grhaib, the lack of WMD's, renditions, the insurgency and its lethality, "mission accomplished", secret foreign prisons, "last throes", torture and now illegal wire taps.

537979[/snapback]

 

Then there's Rather, CNN, CBS, Jennings, and the New York Times all doing their best to imitate Cletus the prison rapist.

 

Insurgency and its lethality? Ask the Shia or Kurds how lethal the "insurgency" is.

 

Secret foreign prisons were hardly a secret. And even if they weren't secret, they should have been. These monsters don't deserve fundamental human rights. They deserve whatever they get.

 

The mission was accomplished. Saddam Hussein is no more.

 

Torture? Have there been and proven allegations of torture? I mean electrical-shock-to-the-nuts kind of totrture? I think not.

 

Illegal wire taps...Let's see if this is proven first.

 

The press has absolutely HAMMERED at the Bush administration since their boys Gore and Kerry lost. They thought they could sway the masses, and it failed, so now they've redoubled their efforts. It's kind of pathetic, really.

[smokinandjokin]

Answer this one question honestly if you would:

 

Do you think his approval rating, low as it is, has ANYTHING to do with a one-sided media campaign against him? I've enver seen a public figure so universally reviled and dogged by the press.

 

IMO they do have an agenda WRT Bush, and I'm not a big Bush backer.

537957[/snapback]

 

Honestly, you are probably correct. A lot of the media takes the lefty approach to reporting, especially nightly news and newspapers.

 

But even without the media filter, when it's just Bush giving a speech, he is such a clownish figure. He doesn't command respect when he speaks. He doesn't appear to be in control of his underlings. His doesn't give off the general aura of someone who is "presidential," whatever that means. You just know it when you see it. His smirk, along with the inconsistencies in what he says compared to what actually happens, make him very hard to trust. I have a sincere worry about the people he surrounds himself with. I thought he was a shady operator in 2000, and he's done nothing in 5 years to make me change that opinion of him.

 

I'm sure you're right JSP, his overall approval has a lot to do with the "negative" media stance. But he had to know going in that the war would overshadow all other policies. Any time young Americans are dying, it takes precedent in the media over something like the positive gains in the economy.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Honestly, you are probably correct.  A lot of the media takes the lefty approach to reporting, especially nightly news and newspapers.   

 

But even without the media filter, when it's just Bush giving a speech, he is such a clownish figure.  He doesn't command respect when he speaks.  He doesn't appear to be in control of his underlings.  His doesn't give off the general aura of someone who is "presidential," whatever that means.  You just know it when you see it.  His smirk, along with the inconsistencies in what he says compared to what actually happens, make him very hard to trust.  I have a sincere worry about the people he surrounds himself with.  I thought he was a shady operator in 2000, and he's done nothing in 5 years to make me change that opinion of him.

 

I'm sure you're right JSP, his overall approval has a lot to do with the "negative" media stance.  But he had to know going in that the war would overshadow all other policies.  Any time young Americans are dying, it takes precedent in the media over something like the positive gains in the economy.

538007[/snapback]

 

 

How about positive gains in Iraq? A hugely successful election ith 70% participation in a nation that's supposedly torn by sectarian violence?

 

And as far as casaulties go, over the lifetime of this war, fewer Americans have died than people died in one day at the Battle of Cannae, and that was using swords and bows. Not only that, the number is something like 1/30th of that bloodshed.

 

We're basically helping to create a democracy where none has ever been known. and historically speaking, we're doing it with an incredibly small loss of life.

[EC-Bills]

Answer this one question honestly if you would:

 

Do you think his approval rating, low as it is, has ANYTHING to do with a one-sided media campaign against him? I've enver seen a public figure so universally reviled and dogged by the press.

 

IMO they do have an agenda WRT Bush, and I'm not a big Bush backer.

537957[/snapback]

 

I agree he is being hammered in the press. Although I would say Clinton was dogged equally as bad, if not worse.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I agree he is being hammered in the press.  Although I would say Clinton was dogged equally as bad, if not worse.

538126[/snapback]

 

I'm not so sure about that.

 

The press, by and large, LOVED Billy Clinton. They have no such love for GWB.

[Simon]

The press, by and large, LOVED Billy Clinton.

 

Yeah, except for those couple years where they opened every newscast by repeatedly hammering him about getting a blowjob.

If they attacked him that viciously for a hummer, imagine what the press would have done if under his watch we'd instigated a pointless war, had the economy go down the tubes, become embroiled in foreign torture and domestic spying controversies and looked like a bunch of bungling idiots day after day.

Bush hasn't gotten it any worse than any other prez with his record would have gotten it.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Yeah, except for those couple years where they opened every newscast by repeatedly hammering him about getting a blowjob.

If they attacked him that viciously for a hummer, imagine what the press would have done if under his watch we'd instigated a pointless war, had the economy go down the tubes, become embroiled in foreign torture and domestic spying controversies and looked like a bunch of bungling idiots day after day.

Bush hasn't gotten it any worse than any other prez with his record would have gotten it.

538165[/snapback]

 

The press, by and large, loved Clinton...but they love a salacious story even more. Ultimately, they don't let their personal feelings for someone get in the way of knocking them off a pedestal.

[Berg]

Yeah, except for those couple years where they opened every newscast by repeatedly hammering him about getting a blowjob.

If they attacked him that viciously for a hummer, imagine what the press would have done if under his watch we'd instigated a pointless war, had the economy go down the tubes, become embroiled in foreign torture and domestic spying controversies and looked like a bunch of bungling idiots day after day.

Bush hasn't gotten it any worse than any other prez with his record would have gotten it.

538165[/snapback]

 

Actually I think he has gotten it worse. It's mostly his fault, but from day one, when he has opened his mouth in front of the media, he has come off sounding like a doofus - except for a couple of key speaches.

 

Irrespective of anything he did or didn't do, Clinton was an excellent communicator - even when he was saying stupid things. Bush can't even pronounce nuclear correctly, so how is he supposed to convince people he's protecting them against WMD? I think Bush has taken more nonsequitur criticism than any Prez since at least Carter. MHO anyway.

[X. Benedict]

I'm not so sure about that.

 

The press, by and large, LOVED Billy Clinton. They have no such love for GWB.

538140[/snapback]

 

The difference between the two presidents may come down to something as simple as engagement. Clinton loved engaging the press, Bush hates it.

 

But what I wonder is this, if the media was state controlled in this country, how exactly would it be different from what we are seeing now?

 

Or if the state controlled the Media during Clinton, how exactly would it be different from what we saw then?

[smokinandjokin]

The difference between the two presidents may come down to something as simple as engagement. Clinton loved engaging the press, Bush hates it.

538220[/snapback]

 

That's true. But the major difference I see is when they are off-script. Clinton was a smooth orator when delivering a prepared speech, but was even more so when he was answering questions or making comments off the cuff.

 

Bush is not a smooth speaker, vocally or with his body language. But it is a full-blown disaster when he has to give a response that was not written by somebody else. I used to really crack up and find it comical that a person who grew up in public life could have no skills in this regard, but now it is tough to watch. Even a dry-heave like John Kerry made Bush look terrible in the debates. Put him at a podium next to a seasoned speaker like Tony Blair, and he looks downright idiotic.

 

It's tough to buy in to what a guy is saying when a) you know he didn't write it (not that that means anything; all pol's have speechwriters) and b) he doesn't look comfortable saying it. How am I supposed to believe him when he doesn't appear to genuinely believe himself? And when he does have to do his own thinking, look out!!!

[erynthered]

Bush divides the masses more than any president I've seen in my lifetime. 

537947[/snapback]

 

 

Just wondering. How many Presidential elections have you voted in? 2?