The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 455

BarTopDancer · 09-08-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I am saying just that...sort of. I think i understand what I didn't explain well. Let's look at one aspect, being the "death panels".

All hypothetical, please understand. I am not saying that they did this.

Cut for length.

Do you believe they did this?

3894 · 09-08-2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

They have some operatives spread this anonymously, gullible people pick up on it, and it becomes the point of discussion rather than the legitimate budgetary concerns.

So Glenn Beck is really a DNC operative? And his wild rant about a building built by Rockefeller as full of subliminal Communist symbols is all to throw us off the trail? And Limbaugh is a DNC operative? Maybe this is why Sarah Palin quit being Alaska's Republican governor! She's really a double agent!

Continuing your hypothetical, the DNC operatives would have to know for absolute certain that the opposition is filled with (your words) "gullible people".

Wait. This last part about "gullible" is true. Especially if we add stupid, racist, and paranoid.

Ghoulish Delight · 09-08-2009, 10:39 AM

Wow.

Just, wow.

scaeagles · 09-08-2009, 10:47 AM

What's "wow" about theorizing about political strategies? I said I wouldn't be surprised if political operatives on both sides of the aisle did things like this. Alex asked for a specific example of how that might apply in the health care debate, so I fabricated one, which I clearly said was a fabrication.

wendybeth · 09-08-2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

What's "wow" about theorizing about political strategies? I said I wouldn't be surprised if political operatives on both sides of the aisle did things like this. Alex asked for a specific example of how that might apply in the health care debate, so I fabricated one, which I clearly said was a fabrication.

The thing is, Scaeagles, the 'wow' factor kicks in when one realizes that you've considered this scenario enough to write about it, even if it was with the usual 'both sides' modifier and the admission that it is a fabricated situation. It's a small step these days from a flight of fancy to fact in the public's mind, especially when it comes to the conservative pundits listed by Alex and others. I'm still waiting for a little less knee-jerk reaction to things like speeches to the kiddies and the like and a little more substantive examples to explain why you just don't like or trust the man. If I were in your brain, I wouldn't like or trust him either- he seems to be far too devious and diabolical for any oridinary man.

scaeagles · 09-08-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

The thing is, Scaeagles, the 'wow' factor kicks in when one realizes that you've considered this scenario enough to write about it, even if it was with the usual 'both sides' modifier and the admission that it is a fabricated situation. It's a small step these days from a flight of fancy to fact in the public's mind, especially when it comes to the conservative pundits listed by Alex and others. I'm still waiting for a little less knee-jerk reaction to things like speeches to the kiddies and the like and a little more substantive examples to explain why you just don't like or trust the man. If I were in your brain, I wouldn't like or trust him either- he seems to be far too devious and diabolical for any oridinary man.

I considered that specific example only after Alex asked a specific question.

However, I don't think (and maybe I'm insane) that I'm that far off in suggesting that this is the type of thing that political operatives do. You've never considered such tricks from Rove or Delay or any other number of Republicans? If not, then not. I suspect it happens all the time.

I suppose I need to get to my long talked about rant over Obama as far as why I do not trust him. It is of course not just a lack of trust but also a dislike of his agenda.

Alex · 09-08-2009, 11:01 AM

Ok. So Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Beck/Hannity/etc. would be unwitting dupes of Obama or his political handlers?

I don't recall where you stood on it then, but that strikes me as equally ridiculous to when the same sort of evil mastermindedness was attributed to Karl Rove (much of the criticism of Bush relied on simultaneously believing they were idiots and criminal super geniuses).

But you still have the issue that apparently so many at the forefront of the conservative movement are stupid enough to fall for it and their viewers go along for the ride. Of course, the same was true when Rove was spreading rumors that Bush wanted to kill all the Muslims.

Strangler Lewis · 09-08-2009, 11:27 AM

Given how things are playing out, I'd almost buy Scaeagles' theory with the minor adjustment that Obama's team concocted the death panel rumor in order to kill health care reform, not to pass it.

scaeagles · 09-08-2009, 11:42 AM

Yeah, people sure thought (think) Rove was evil, and honestly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he did things in a manner like I suggested. It's what political operatives do. I think Rahm Emmanuel is about as slimey as they come, and I wouldn't put this type of thing past them.

And I feel the need to reiterate - not for you Alex, but for others - I am not in anyway accusing Obama or his administration of starting the death panel thing. It was a hypothetical example based on a question of how this political strategy might apply to the health care debate.

As far as being unwitting dupes....yeah, to an extent. The trick is putting something out there from the bill that might, in some form of wild interpretation, be able to be interpretted that way. Since there are many who expect the worst of the other side of the political aisle (and I admittedly am one of them, as I suspect many here are whether they would like to admit it or not), including those you mention, it then becomes something that is run with. It is then an issue of wild interpretation, spin, and the general distrust that exists between the different sides.

Alex · 09-08-2009, 11:50 AM

So, lacking any evidence to the contrary is it not reasonable to assume the simpler explanation that the kooks on the right (and previous kooks on the left) are home grown within their own movements? There is a word for believing that for which there is no evidence but simply because it is an explanation that makes you feel better.

And therefore, that regardless of whether they were manipulated into it or cam up with it themselves, those who put forward these ideas, or refused to treat them with the ridicule they deserved are either extremely stupid and therefore unworthy of their positions as visible philosophical leaders of the movement or acting with mendacious intent to subvert reasonable debate and therefore continuing to let them lead the movement is morally reprehensible?

09-08-2009, 10:39 AM	#3
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Wow. Just, wow. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

09-08-2009, 10:47 AM	#4
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	What's "wow" about theorizing about political strategies? I said I wouldn't be surprised if political operatives on both sides of the aisle did things like this. Alex asked for a specific example of how that might apply in the health care debate, so I fabricated one, which I clearly said was a fabrication.
	Submit to Quotes

09-08-2009, 11:01 AM	#7
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Ok. So Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Beck/Hannity/etc. would be unwitting dupes of Obama or his political handlers? I don't recall where you stood on it then, but that strikes me as equally ridiculous to when the same sort of evil mastermindedness was attributed to Karl Rove (much of the criticism of Bush relied on simultaneously believing they were idiots and criminal super geniuses). But you still have the issue that apparently so many at the forefront of the conservative movement are stupid enough to fall for it and their viewers go along for the ride. Of course, the same was true when Rove was spreading rumors that Bush wanted to kill all the Muslims.
	Submit to Quotes

09-08-2009, 11:27 AM	#8
Strangler Lewis Doing The Job Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In a state Posts: 3,956	Given how things are playing out, I'd almost buy Scaeagles' theory with the minor adjustment that Obama's team concocted the death panel rumor in order to kill health care reform, not to pass it. __________________ Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!
	Submit to Quotes

09-08-2009, 11:42 AM	#9
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Yeah, people sure thought (think) Rove was evil, and honestly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he did things in a manner like I suggested. It's what political operatives do. I think Rahm Emmanuel is about as slimey as they come, and I wouldn't put this type of thing past them. And I feel the need to reiterate - not for you Alex, but for others - I am not in anyway accusing Obama or his administration of starting the death panel thing. It was a hypothetical example based on a question of how this political strategy might apply to the health care debate. As far as being unwitting dupes....yeah, to an extent. The trick is putting something out there from the bill that might, in some form of wild interpretation, be able to be interpretted that way. Since there are many who expect the worst of the other side of the political aisle (and I admittedly am one of them, as I suspect many here are whether they would like to admit it or not), including those you mention, it then becomes something that is run with. It is then an issue of wild interpretation, spin, and the general distrust that exists between the different sides.
	Submit to Quotes

09-08-2009, 11:50 AM	#10
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	So, lacking any evidence to the contrary is it not reasonable to assume the simpler explanation that the kooks on the right (and previous kooks on the left) are home grown within their own movements? There is a word for believing that for which there is no evidence but simply because it is an explanation that makes you feel better. And therefore, that regardless of whether they were manipulated into it or cam up with it themselves, those who put forward these ideas, or refused to treat them with the ridicule they deserved are either extremely stupid and therefore unworthy of their positions as visible philosophical leaders of the movement or acting with mendacious intent to subvert reasonable debate and therefore continuing to let them lead the movement is morally reprehensible?
	Submit to Quotes