Humor: scrutinizing the candidates

[quartodeciman]

This is very appropriate for PF:

link to Tom Tomorrow: THIS MODERN WORLD --->
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17231

Quart

 

[BoulderHead]

lol

 

[GENIERE]

Unfortunately for the Democrats the Wahl "Male Grooming Survey" determined that President Bush has the best hair style of the candidates. Kerry is wrong again.

 

[wasteofo2]

Unfortunately for the Democrats the Wahl "Male Grooming Survey" determined that President Bush has the best hair style of the candidates. Kerry is wrong again.

That would make a great ad contrasteed with something Kerry said just a day ago. Someone asked him something about his ticket compared to Bush's, he outlined differences, then added "And we (Edwards and him) have the best hair!" and then did that retarted laugh of his.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think, if you were to give out team scores Team Kerry-Edwards would beat Team Bush-Cheney.

 

[Njorl]

So, when quantifying DIck Cheney's hair, is it indeterminate, or undefined?

Njorl

 

[Robert Zaleski]

and then did that retarted laugh of his.

It comes effortlessly. After he did his whinny, did you detect any cracks in that horse face of his?

 

[amp]

LOL, funny comic strip, it does illuminate - in the commentary - the uneven, (unfair?), lopsided way the 'conservative' media chooses to portray Mr. Kerry and President Bush.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I don't even think most Liberals believe that President Bush is given the better treatment between the two candidates. The media isn't exactly kind to Republicans.

 

[Njorl]

I don't even think most Liberals believe that President Bush is given the better treatment between the two candidates. The media isn't exactly kind to Republicans.

Then you would be thinking wrong.

I and most other liberals do indeed believe George Bush has been given better treatment by the media.

While Bush made any statement he wanted about Iraq, with no critical analysis from the press, the press was hounding John Kerry about expensive haircuts and Botox.

CNN runs Bush's campaign adds during news segments over and over. They claim it is analysis. Then they don't do any analysis!

Even after being president for over three years Bush is still benefiting from his "underestimation". No measure of competence is expected of him, so criticizing him is just mean.

Papers try to be "fair and balanced", even if this means they have to overlook Bush's blunders and make things up about Kerry. Papers are so terrified of the "Liberal media bias" tag that they would rather be inaccurate.

Njorl

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, look at all the scrutiny given to every single thing said by Kerry, even 30 years ago. Want to guess what Bush was saying and doing at that time ?

A friend of mine has heard reminiscences from a professor at MIT, who was a close buddy of Bush during their Yale years. If you're Republican, you don't want to know what they were doing then !

 

[amp]

I'm independent, Goku43201, old friend do tell what this professor said, do tell indeed.
BTW, there is a NEW documentary film out called 'OUTFOXED' which gets into the outrageous favoritism of just one media giant.

Yes, look at all the scrutiny given to every single thing said by Kerry, even 30 years ago. Want to guess what Bush was saying and doing at that time ?

Right, THEY (for Jdubya - the military or Bush cronies) even (Accidentally?) destroyed payroll records (done in triplicate as well as stored on micro film) that could have shed light on Bushs' military service.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Right, they even (Accidentally?) destroyed payroll records (done in triplicate as well as stored on micro film) that could have shed light on Bushs' military service.

Who are THEY?

I find it laughable that Ted Turner would go out of his way to support George W.

While Bush made any statement he wanted about Iraq, with no critical analysis from the press

No critical analysis? The media has trumped up the NO WMD spiel from Day One. Do you really consider having Ted Koppel read the names of American dead on Nightline as pro-Bush?

I'll give you Fox News. But the rest of the news outlets have been heavily critical of the Bush Administration.

 

[Njorl]

I was talking about the build-up to the war. No mainstream press analyzed the Bush case for war in any meaningful way. It was the single most important issue in our country in the last 25 years, and the press accepted everything the administration said without critique. There is every reason to believe that they had genuine doubts, but they refused to act on them. They became a partisan organ of the Bush administration.

Sure, after the war, when the administration's lies became manifestly obvious, the press could hardly continue to support them. But even now the so-called-liberal-media expect more honesty and intellectual rigor from Michael Moore than they do from George Bush. Have you seen the interviews of Moore? No administration official has ever faced questioning like that. I admit that Moore is a hack. Shouldn't we expect more from our president then we do from a hack? Not according to the "liberal media". They still write articles that they feel sorry for poor Dubya being bullied by Moore.

Njorl

 

[Prometheus]

But even now the so-called-liberal-media expect more honesty and intellectual rigor from Michael Moore than they do from George Bush. Have you seen the interviews of Moore? No administration official has ever faced questioning like that. I admit that Moore is a hack. Shouldn't we expect more from our president then we do from a hack?

Excellent point.

Even after evidence for all of the Bush justifications for the war have been shown to have been lies or based on errant information, Bush still pretends that he was right, and a great many people do not seem to care about the lies and misinformation.

 

[quartodeciman]

Moore is an artist. It pops out ineluctably out of its subject and bias. View the film in abstract, as if it were a rediscovered vestige from an earlier age. Let the other side try to make something equal to it.

 

[quartodeciman]

poles say Bush is ahead

Next week they are going to ask the latvians.

{it works better as a spoken gag}

 

[Gokul43201]

A recent poll (Newsweek, I think) said that Bush's chances were best with Powell as Veep. Fat chance, that happening !

 

[JohnDubYa]

Moore is an artist. It pops out ineluctably out of its subject and bias. View the film in abstract, as if it were a rediscovered vestige from an earlier age. Let the other side try to make something equal to it.

First of all, I don't want our side to stoop to producing such films.

Second, being a mere "artist" didn't stop him from winning an Oscar for Best DOCUMENTARY. Care to explain that one away?

 

[quartodeciman]

First of all, I don't want our side to stoop to producing such films.

"stoop"? I guess that means you don't think the idea good.

Second, being a mere "artist" didn't stop him from winning an Oscar for Best DOCUMENTARY. Care to explain that one away?

What is there to explain away? What is "mere" about being an artist? Oh, the Motion Picture Academy votes based on what the members like, whatever their reasons for it.

 

[JohnDubYa]

What is there to explain away? What is "mere" about being an artist? Oh, the Motion Picture Academy votes based on what the members like, whatever their reasons for it.

His movie was either a documentary, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then he did not deserve the Oscar, correct? And if it was, he is not merely an artist.

Moore is a propaganda film maker, distorting the truth in order to further a political agenda.

Suppose the Right made a movie that used special 3-D effects to place a hated politican (say, John Kerry) in compromising situations that never occurred. Suppose that much of the public believed the incorrect story that was portrayed and the filmakers made no attempt to correct the story. In fact, the film makers intended the audience to form the wrong impression of history. Would you support such a movie? After all, such 3-D techniques are considered an art-form.

 

[Gokul43201]

Suppose the Right made a movie that used special 3-D effects to place a hated politican (say, John Kerry) in compromising situations that never occurred. Suppose that much of the public believed the incorrect story that was portrayed and the filmakers made no attempt to correct the story. In fact, the film makers intended the audience to form the wrong impression of history. Would you support such a movie? After all, such 3-D techniques are considered an art-form.

For a minute there, I thought you were taking about FOX News...but I guess not, eh ?

 

[russ_watters]

Second, being a mere "artist" didn't stop him from winning an Oscar for Best DOCUMENTARY. Care to explain that one away?

Simple - its an Oscar.

His movie was either a documentary, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then he did not deserve the Oscar, correct?

You're assuming a criterion for the award which does not exist.

The best description of the type of movie I've seen is "mockumentary."

In any case, he's quite free to make such movies and write such books - I just don't want to hear any Democrats complaining about Rush Limbaugh ever again.

 

[Njorl]

Simple - its an Oscar. You're assuming a criterion for the award which does not exist.

The best description of the type of movie I've seen is "mockumentary."

In any case, he's quite free to make such movies and write such books - I just don't want to hear any Democrats complaining about Rush Limbaugh ever again.

Moore is nothing like Limbaugh. Moore very rarely tells outright lies. He certainly tells them less frequently than the president. The worst he does is juxtaposing controversial statements that lead one to come to a false conclusion. Hard to condemn him for that since it was the Bush administration's primary mode of operation to get us into Iraq.

Rush Limbaugh knowingly lies on a constant basis. Generally he has several blatent, defamatory lies per hour.

People have been tearing Moore's movie apart looking for lies, and they just are not finding them. There is some chance he may have lied about when the Bin Laden's were flown out of the US. Yes, there is stupid innuendo like implying we went into Afghanistan for a pipeline (though he doesn't come out and say it), but the majority of the movie is solid. Is it one sided? Yep. It is a documentary, and like all documentaries, it is one sided. When questioned about the one-sidedness of his movie, Moore responded that the entire press had been on the other side of the issue, so his one-sidedness did not account for much.

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Moore is nothing like Limbaugh. Moore very rarely tells outright lies.

Maybe I shouldn't have brought Limbaugh up, but if you can substantiate that (outright lies), I'd appreciate it.

Propaganda is the art of getting people to believe that which is not true. In the US, it requires deception, but not outright lies - for some reason people think deception is ok. Moore is a master at it.

People have been tearing Moore's movie apart looking for lies, and they just are not finding them. There is some chance he may have lied about when the Bin Laden's were flown out of the US. Yes, there is stupid innuendo...

The problem is that people aren't paying enough attention (in a movie, that's easy because the director/editor controls the pace), they don't realize that they are taking the inuendo and finishing the sentence/providing the implied answer. You (the audience) provide the lies for him! His talent/skill really is impressive, but I consider that type of deception to be just as bad as an outright lie. A fact can be checked and verified. An inuendo cannot.

I found http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm to be informative. I'm currently reading his latest book ("Dude, Where's my Country") and it appears to be what the movie is based on. There are some things in the book that you can't do with a movie though - like overloading it with citations for the appearance of credibility and to shift th burden of proof.

 

[Njorl]

Here is Limbaugh's lie from yesterday.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407150010

The site is usually good for a couple of outright lies from Limbaugh every week.

There are few human beings more dishonest than Rush Limbaugh.


Another site dedicated just to Rush.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html
Njorl

 

[quartodeciman]

His movie was either a documentary, or it wasn't.

That's tautologous. No argument there, also no interesting information.

If it wasn't, then he did not deserve the Oscar, correct? And if it was, he is not merely an artist.

Whether one thinks he deserved it or not, he got it because the MPA decided to give it to him. They could have given it to any filmmaker. It is their's to give, not mine.

Moore is a propaganda film maker, distorting the truth in order to further a political agenda.

Well, there you are. You distrust the content. Leni Riefenstahl made a political propaganda film that probably distorts truth about the world of the 1930s. It is "Triumph des Willens" and a fabulous movie. Maybe F9/11 will be regarded highly far in the future when everybody has forgotten the Iraq war, neocon US executive and everything else associated with this time. I say it may have the values to justify that. It remains to be seen whether that is true or the film just gets forgotten.

Suppose the Right made a movie that used special 3-D effects to place a hated politican (say, John Kerry) in compromising situations that never occurred. Suppose that much of the public believed the incorrect story that was portrayed and the filmakers made no attempt to correct the story. In fact, the film makers intended the audience to form the wrong impression of history. Would you support such a movie? After all, such 3-D techniques are considered an art-form.

I wouldn't likely know all those conditions were true until after the fact. If the movie were well made I might enjoy it and even praise it, all the while disowning its premises. As for "supporting" a movie, I interpret that to mean investing money in it. I'm too much a skinflint to put money into a movie. So under that interpretation, I guess I wouldn't support this movie and I haven't supported F9/11 either (except for price of admission, and I don't consider that "support". It is just the cost of seeing a movie).

P.S. I'm not particularly keen on 3D effects. But I might overlook that if the movie revealed things I hold to be valuable.

 

[Gokul43201]

There are few human beings more dishonest than Rush Limbaugh.

Njorl

I'd put Matt Drudge right up there with Limbaugh, but he is less influential.

Speaking of lies , here's a few interesting sites :

www.tvnewslies.org
www.whoslying.org[/URL]

 

[russ_watters]

Here is Limbaugh's lie from yesterday.

Well...

Eighty percent of them will admit it [emphasis added]

Sounds like a prediction that turned out to be erroneous. In any case, the site you linked did not characterize it as a lie.

This may be a topic for another thread though...

edit: interesting poll though: 54% identify themselves as moderate, 34% as liberal, and 7% as conservative. I wonder what the actual voter registration stats are for journalists - 54% would be quite a lot of registered independents.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Well... Sounds like a prediction that turned out to be erroneous. In any case, the site you linked did not characterize it as a lie.

This may be a topic for another thread though...

edit: interesting poll though: 54% identify themselves as moderate, 34% as liberal, and 7% as conservative. I wonder what the actual voter registration stats are for journalists - 54% would be quite a lot of registered independents.

I think what Limbaugh did to come up with 80% liberal was discard the moderates, since they're neither self proclaimed liberals or conservatives. So 34 + 7= 41(the whole) and 34/41=83% liberal and 17% conservative.

 

[Prometheus]

In any case, he's quite free to make such movies and write such books - I just don't want to hear any Democrats complaining about Rush Limbaugh ever again.

Even if you made this comment in jest, I do not understand it.

One man makes a movie that you do not like. Therefore, you state categorically that millions of people who were not involved in making this film no longer have any right whatsoever to complain about the rantings of an unrelated idiot who has had his brain tied behind his back his whole drug-ridden career.

 

[Gokul43201]

edit: interesting poll though: 54% identify themselves as moderate, 34% as liberal, and 7% as conservative. I wonder what the actual voter registration stats are for journalists - 54% would be quite a lot of registered independents.

Joe Scarborough (of MSNBC's Scarborough Country) and (FOX's) Bill O'Reilly call themselves moderates.

They're not really journalists, but this seems to suggest to me that more conservatives prefer to call themselves moderates.

Or am I the only one that thinks the above two (esp. Joe) are NOT moderates ?

 

[JohnDubYa]

One man makes a movie that you do not like.

First of all, it isn't that we merely dislike the movie. The movie contains numerous, intentional, factual errors.

Therefore, you state categorically that millions of people who were not involved in making this film no longer have any right whatsoever to complain about the rantings of an unrelated idiot who has had his brain tied behind his back his whole drug-ridden career.

Yes, because they would be hypocrites.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

This article suggests that many of the self described moderates may actually be...sssshhh! closet liberals.
www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2004/report063004_p2.asp - 32k

 

[russ_watters]

Even if you made this comment in jest, I do not understand it.

One man makes a movie that you do not like. Therefore, you state categorically that millions of people who were not involved in making this film no longer have any right whatsoever to complain about the rantings of an unrelated idiot who has had his brain tied behind his back his whole drug-ridden career.

Millions of people watched the movie. Millions of people listen to Rush. If some of either of those groups complain about the other group's talking head's existence, that's hypocrisy. Democrats often complain that Republicans have the market on propaganda cornered. I never bought it before, but now they have no room to complain at all.

I think what Limbaugh did to come up with 80% liberal was discard the moderates, since they're neither self proclaimed liberals or conservatives. So 34 + 7= 41(the whole) and 34/41=83% liberal and 17% conservative.

Yeah, I considered that too, but I don't know. If so, that's dishonest, but not a flat-out lie. Wait, who were we talking about again? :rofl:

Joe Scarborough (of MSNBC's Scarborough Country) and (FOX's) Bill O'Reilly call themselves moderates.

They're not really journalists, but this seems to suggest to me that more conservatives prefer to call themselves moderates.

Two examples does not equal a pattern. I would expect to find the opposite.