DescentBB

[This topic was originally a part of Do as I say, not as I do...and other foriegn policy fun. -Lothar]

I've been waiting for more infomation about the *wedding party massacre* and Lothar's latest addition bears out the bs that the left will so readily embrace. It was no wedding party, it was a solid hit. But notice that when definitive information comes to light that redeems US forces, instead of relief there is either irrational denial of the facts or a collective sigh of disappointment from those that were hoping the lie would stick. Why does the left lie so much? Faked photos in the Mirror, faked attrocities, phoney rape images from a porn site, misrepresented casualty reports, just to name a few recent catches and none of these held up under scrutiny. On many Iraqi blogs there is never a shortage of imposter Iraqis posting wild claims as well until their IPs reveal them as liars. So much deception from the left. When one has to rely on complete fabrications to bolster one's position, maybe it's time to consider being on the wrong side of history.

Bash, your response gave me a good laugh. But on a more serious note:

I remember in the origional Bowling for Columbine thread you made some comment to the extent that you thought the movie was nothing but a freak show. But you do the exact same things that you so loath of Michael Moore.

I could go to KKK websites and show how they support Bush, and then come to the conclusion, "well naturally all conservatives are racists." Or I could go to other "conservative" sites that think we should just nuke it and be done with it. And then pass this off as the "secret republican truth" that I now uncovered.

You go to the "democraticunderground" and assume that there lies "the heart of the real democrats," and everything the real democrats say is just to deceive you from our "cold hard nasty hidden truth," which you mannaged to discover.

But that is no different form Michael Moore trying to prove that this war was about oil, and showing that this is "the heart of the real conservatives." Or that the majority of people who own guns are all lunatics.

Both sides have their extremists. And if you think that they represent the Norm then perhaps you too should go into the documentary business.

The democrats are not happy when a soldier dies, needless death is the reason most of us protested the war in the first place! We arn't saddened to find out that it was indeed a legit military target, we are relieved. And if you think that it is only the left that "gets it wrong sometimes," then you need to detach yourself from your patriotism a little bit.

Half of me wants to say "word, Goob" -- because most of what you say is right on.

But there is a problem with your initial analogy (about going to KKK sites that support Bush, and painting all conservatives with the KKK brush) -- and that is, a lot of the really hateful stuff is coming from fairly mainstream Democratic sites, and even some official ones. I could legitimately say "the KKK is a fringe group, not representative of the party" -- but could you say the same for the Democratic National Committee? You can find wackos from both parties, sure -- but the Democratic party seems to put the wackos at the forefront. The sensible Democrats really need to do something about that.

Lothar nails it.

Perhaps this is a "different side of the fence" perspective.

That site you listed has a ton of negative, but it is mostly about Bush and company. You can't forget that its an election year. You see tons of bad stuff about Kerry on Bush sites as well.

What I was commenting with Bash was the entire group negativity against the opposing entire group. And with that I do seem to see more, "right bashes all of left and tries to shine them all in negative light", "left bashes Bush administration, and tries to show them negativly".

But like I said above, this is probably just a "grass is greener" issue. People notice attacks on them more then attacks on the other.

Goob, after reading my reply over I noticed I was basically repeating Lothar's contention that the KKK analogy is ludicrous and that the liberal sources that are making fabrications or repeating fabrications are not fringe. Therein lies the difference. I agree with you, Goob, that not all liberals are clapping along when bs stories disseminated to make the coalition look bad (like the Brit abuse photos or the recent *wedding party* claim) but by in large the voices calling for patience, and to withhold conclusions until all the facts are in, are silent. If you say not to consider the fabricators and repeaters mainstream, then maybe someone in the mainstream left needs to take back its party and reign in the loons that are making you all look mean-spirited and deceptive. What comes to mind is a saying I read recently that hit home regarding the overall perceptual damage some groups under the liberal tent do to their image; *God save us from our friends*.

So quickly the tides turn.

Like I was saying, it needs to be acknowledged that this is an election year. And anything that might get one vote taken away from the other guy will be propagated through by the other party. Thatâ??s the name of the game in elections, to make the other guy look bad. (Insert Birdsye's "vote third party" comment here).

Is it commendable? No. But it is not just the dems who do it.

But none of this has to do with the point I was originally responding too. And that is one side (right), (or actually let me just keep it at Bash ) trying to demonize the entire other side (left). (not just disagree with the other side, but really try to show them as being demons who take joy at fallen soldiers, and are upset that it wasnâ??t a wedding that was struck, who hope that we fail in Iraq).

Is it right for the left to implant the idea that Bush is in it for the oil by telling others about Cheney, Rice, and Bush's connections to the oil industry?

Probably not on an ideal moral scale, but do you doubt that the other side would do the exact same if the situations were reversed? I am not going to try and justify political mudslinging, it has been around for as long as the country!

I do want to be clear that we are now talking about two different issues. The one you guys both responded too is different from the one I brought up. (I am not saying here that it isn't a valid claim, just that it is different).

Alot of the war "fabrications" are there, and I think you will agree, to make President Bush look bad so that he will loose the election. But my original comment was responding Bash's remarks of "the left," instead of "some on the left."

To respond to a removed comment: the KKK is still around today. They have weekly internet shows, and they claim to be represent white Christians in America. They are anti-gay marriage. They are anti-abortion. They are anti-gun control. Strongly oppose granting amnesty to illegal immigrats and teaching in foreign languages. Strongly oppose welfare. They support having the United States adopt English as our national language. Sound like another party? Keep in mind the intention of my original post, it was to say that it was indeed a poor conclusion. That just because they share some beliefs doesnâ??t mean that the republican party embraces their more radical stances. This is where the similarity rises between Bash linking â??the left,â?

Gooberman wrote:But my original comment was responding Bash's remarks of "the left," instead of "some on the left."

bash wrote:maybe someone in the mainstream left needs to take back its party and reign in the loons that are making you all look mean-spirited and deceptive.

Goob, you're missing the critical point, which bash so elegantly put forth there.

Yeah, some people on the right demonize "the left" for the actions of only "some of the left", and they're probably going too far by doing so. But there are very few on the left who are willing to actually distance themselves from the "some" being demonized. It's guilt by association, and it's the fault of the mainstream left for not distancing themselves. If you demonize "the right" based on "some of the right" (the KKK) the whole rest of the right will get out there and say "no, these people don't represent us." But when bash demonizes "the left" based on the Democratic Underground... where are the major voices on the left saying "these people don't represent us"?

Goob, the left needs more people like you. I talk to a lot of people from the left -- and you've been the ONLY one willing to actually say "the Democratic Underground doesn't represent us." The left needs someone like you in the mainstream media, to say "these people DO NOT represent us."

Gooberman wrote:I want both of you to show me where the mainstream left has shown [blah blah blah...]

The mainstream left hasn't necessarily shown any of those things. But the mainstream left *has* failed to distance itself from those who do.

This is why your analogy fails. You say that using a KKK site to demonize the right would be "very similar" -- but it's NOT. If you used a KKK site to demonize the right, everybody on the right would come out and say "that's a fringe group." People in the media would say it, people on the boards would say it, people on the street would say it. Whoever's attention was drawn to it would say it. But when bash uses Democratic Underground (or I use the DNC, or the big conservative sites use either) to demonize the left, you're the *only* person I've seen who's willing to step up and say "that does not represent us." The mainstream left, as a whole, has not shown a willingness to step up and treat those bash is criticizing as "fringe".

You see... you complain that you and the rest of the mainstream left shouldn't be demonized based on what Democratic Underground says. You're right to make this complaint -- but the rest of the left needs to step up and make the same complaint, or it's going to fall on deaf ears. As long as the mainstream left allows the Democratic Underground (and some of the crap on the oh-so-maturely-titled "kicking a$$" official blog of the Democratic Party) to speak for it, you're going to be demonized for their words.

Let me say it again... the majority of the right is willing to come out and say "the KKK does not speak for us." The majority of the left is NOT willing to come out and say "the DU does not speak for us." We can discuss why that might be -- but the simple fact remains, as long as the mainstream left fails to distance itself from the crazy left, the mainstream left has to deal with being demonized along with the crazy left.

edit:

you would think Sen. Kennedy was the main democratic voice for as much press time as he gets!

... and for the fact that, when he speaks, nobody steps up to say "he's not mainstream."

If David Duke or some other KKK jacka$$ was given the same amount of press time as Ted Kennedy, and treated as "the conservative voice", there would be an abundance of right-wing voices out there saying "this guy does not represent us. He's not mainstream. We don't agree with where he's coming from." There would be outrage -- "how dare you treat him as our spokesman?" Why won't the left step up and do the same to Kennedy, and say "he's fringe, he's not mainstream, he doesn't speak for us, we don't agree with him"? I don't know the real reason -- but I do know that it makes it *appear* as if the mainstream left agrees with him. This is the problem you all have to deal with.

Goob, you're missing the critical point, which bash so elegantly put forth there.

Well, to be honest, when I wrote my response that point from bash wasn't there yet! But I did edit my post to include it.

For the most part of what you wrote Lothar, I will agree. It should be more criticized. Anyone who has these beliefs on the left that Bash says are mainstream should be more criticized by the left, (the same issues as above).

However, I think now this is a political issue. We don't want to criticize "our own" in an election year, especially with Nader involved.

I feel that "we" do this for the same reason that Bush wouldn't respond to the reporters gimmie question of, "do you think you made any mistakes during your term as presidency." In both cases the other side would try and use it as a wedge. So right now, we pretend that it doesn't exist.

Even still, I think most on the left would find offensive the remark that they take joy at fallen soldiers, want us to fail in iraq, and are saddened that it wasn't a wedding.

In regards to Kennedy, many politicians did publicly disagree with his "Bush's Vietnam" remarks. I do believe if you asked the average person on the left if they think this is "Bush's Vietnam" they would say no. They may then list some similarities! But they would say, "No here he doesn't represent us."

(Truth be told though that is just a guess, one in which the political people I view as "main stream" tend to agree with. Most of my friends are conservative. Arizona is a very conservative state.)

And my response to your response wasn't there because you edited it in ;) It is there now, though. But anyway, that point was also there in previous posts -- bash just said it particularly well in the last one.

(I'm going to split this off from the foreign-policy thread...)

This is some edit game the three of us got going on

LOL... at least I label my edits.

Gooberman wrote:I think now this is a political issue.

In part, it is, and I think it hurts the Democratic party politically either way they respond. If you criticize "your own" (notice how willingly you call them "our own") you risk losing their votes to Nader. But if you don't criticize them, you risk losing swing voters.

Personally, I think the Dems would be wiser to try to gain the swing votes. Yeah, criticizing the angry-left might lose you a few of those votes to Nader, but it's not going to lose you many, because most of those people are going to vote for Kerry because "he can beat Bush" anyway. The angry-left voices you worry about marginalizing... they won't vote for Nader no matter how much the mainstream left criticizes them, because they want Bush out even if they have to vote for a total centerist.

What the Dems are doing instead is trying to solidify the angry-left vote (which, frankly, they already have in the bag), at the expense of two things: swing voters, and principle. It's a bad policy decision on their part.

No edit has been done on this post: at this point
Edit: 1 edit has been done.

notice how willingly you call them "our own"

I put "our own" in quotes intentionally as semi-sarcasm to indicate that they are willing to vote along side of us. I didn't want to restate everything that I have written above, and was hoping you would let me get away with the short-cut. (I do think you got what I was implying.)

To respond to the rest, I am not in charge of the Kerry campaign They think this will get them the most votes, they probably know better then either of us. I do disagree however that it is impossible to alienate the angry-left vote, I think that is where Nader gets alot of his votes from; people who think the two parties are now the same. On this issue, most of this is just mud-slinging. Your right, the dems don't come out against it like they should. However, I don't think the conservatives do either.

Again, we have moved almost completely now to your and Bash's issue, back to me . (I would almost rather two seperate threads for these because I don't mind responding to the other topic but the two can be very easily confused. However, I know now it would be near-impossible to split them).

But the mainstream left *has* failed to distance itself from those who do. [in responce to the pro-American death, pro-iraq failure, sad that it wasnt a wedding]

I think that for these really extreme issues the left shouldn't have to voice disagreement for these radical opinions. It should be obvious. If someone is happy that soldiers are dieing in Iraq because it will help Kerry get elected. If someone is saddened that it wasn't a wedding because this hurts Kerryâ??s chances at getting elected. And if someone wants Iraq to fail just because it will help Kerry get elected: then it should just be out of common respect for the other parties general decency to know that these people don't represent them as a whole.

Does the Bush campaign come out condeming those who are in favor of a "just nuke it and be done with it" policy? No, and they shouldn't have too! (If you disagree with this, please show me.)

The bottom line is you shouldnâ??t have to respond to conservative racist sites, or the "kill everyone" group, and we shouldnâ??t have to acknowledge pro-American soldier death liberal sites.

No democratic national figure that I know of, (not even Kennedy) has made the claims that Bash says are main stream. You are requesting that we respond to the "hicks" withen our party.

The conservatives really don't do that either!

There has never been an issue like that of Iraq, in which I hope so strongly that I am wrong. I will be glad if I am wrong on this issue. It comes down to a basic disagreement in logic, I agree with many of the conservatives goals but do not think that the way they have gone about achieving them will work. If I am wrong: wonderful! Because I still agree with the goals, just not the methods.

Goob, to clarify because you are misrepresenting what I said IN THIS THREAD, I haven't said it is common to wish for the deaths of American soldiers, at least not among American leftists (foreign leftists is a different story). Granted, the pro-distortion contingent of American liberals is only once removed from that conclusion (i.e. if you hope that an Iraqi democracy fails it goes without saying that more soldiers will die while endeavoring to help it succeed) but I didn't say that and you're practicing the sort of hyperbole, distortion and overstatement that my orignal post was condemning. Take it at face value, don't fill in the blanks. If I said it here, respond to it, but if I didn't make that claim that American liberals are hoping for American deaths in order to boost Kerry's election chances, please stop pretending that I did.

That said, anything that's designed to sap American resolve to see this difficult task through to a successful conclusion dovetails nicely with exactly what the PR war coming from groups like Al-Qaeda, the Iranian mullahs, former Baathists, etc. When American liberals find themselves in such company, promoting the same propaganda and often appearing to be wishing for the same conclusion (granted, for entirely different reasons), shouldn't a lightbulb be illuminating somewhere that certain bedfellows are more than just strange, they are obscene.

Anyway, we do seem to have several different lines going on simultaneously here. Suffice to say, if it continues in the same negative tone I would predict it will eventually reach a backlash among swing voters and conservative/liberal fence-sitters prior to the election. As Americans, we can handle and process legitimate bad news and reach the necessary conclusions, even if it means changing ones mind about who to vote for. There's no need to put the blatant spin MANY BUT NOT ALL leftists are putting on the war.

Whoever is in the Whitehouse next January, the Iraq liberation is still going to be a work in progress. Let' suppose Kerry is president. Is the left going to suddenly do an about-face and say, *nevermind all that doom and gloom prior to the election, now that it's our guy in office, GO TEAM GO!" It may be too late at that point. The way I read the messages and tactics coming from the left, it appears they are putting their selfsih desire to see Bush defeated above what I would consider the more important national interest in promoting a successful Iraqi transition to a democracy.

Goob, we can't "split the issues" because they're so tightly related. You keep trying to drag them apart and deal with yours alone, but you can't deal with your issue separate from ours. The question of "why do we demonize Democrats based on the fringe ones" can't be split off from the question of "who is mainstream?"

I think that for these really extreme issues the left shouldn't have to voice disagreement for these radical opinions. It should be obvious.

But it's not, and that's the point I've been trying to make. That's the question we need to establish the answer to: why isn't it obvious that the people who play up every American death, who say Iraq is another Vietnam, who desire to see America fail, and who even want to see casualties mount, are extremists and not mainstream Democrats? When a KKK extremist speaks up, nobody mistakes them for the mainstream Republicans. But when a DU extremist speaks up, a lot of people mistake them for mainstream Democrats. Why?

A few things:

1) Both parties talk a lot about Bush and his policies. This means I know very well where the mainstream of the Republican party stands on the issues -- both parties tell me about it all the time. On the other hand, neither party talks about Kerry and his policies. John Kerry isn't interested in telling us what his positions are (but we know he served in Vietnam), and the rest of his party is too busy talking about Bush to tell us where they stand. This means I don't know where the mainstream of the Democratic party is.

2) A lot of the somewhat extreme talk (particularly with respect to the war and the election) from the left is coming from party insiders, like Ted Kennedy, and from people the party tends to treat well, like Michael Moore. Also, a lot of fairly extreme websites are 1 or 2 clicks away from official Democratic websites. For example, the DNC blog (oh-so-cleverly titled "kicking a$$") links directly to Daily Kos, and John Kerry's website links directly to Democratic Underground and bush2004.com (which specializes in mockery). Based on this close association, I can only guess that these opinions are at least somewhat close to party mainstream. On the Republican side, you're not hearing extreme comments from party insiders -- the one general who made the "convert them all" comment was jumped on fairly quickly -- and you can't get to the KKK in one or two clicks from official Republican websites.

3) The sheer volume of unacceptably negative comments coming from the left is staggering. The official DNC blog is pretty negative, the press is even moreso, and the Democrats I know personally are even more negative than that. If I want to find a Democrat saying "Bush is a liar" or "Republicans are morons" or "removing Saddam wasn't worth it" I don't have to look hard. If I say "did you hear they bombed a wedding in Iraq" on the bus, I get a barrage of "see, this proves BUSH IS EVIL!" comments from people who are SMILING ABOUT IT! If I say "did you hear they found chemical weapons in Iraq?" the same people will frown and cuss at me and tell me it's not true. If I want to find a Democrat who can actually converse with me like I'm a sensible human being, and who will wait to hear both sides of the story, and who won't automatically assume the absolute worst about everything the military or the Bush administration does, well, I know of two (Goob, and a guy named Derek from another board.) That is, the sensible ones seem to be strongly in the minority. It wasn't like that 2 years ago -- 2 years ago I could come on here and talk with sensible Democrats, and I could sit in my office and talk with sensible Democrats, and I could sit on the bus and talk with sensible Democrats. Those people are still around, but they've almost all forgotten how to carry on a conversation without flaming conservatives.

What this means is that, all together, the picture of the Democratic party that I get -- and the one that's broadcast to the masses -- is strongly tilted toward the extreme end of the party, rather than toward the mainstream. This also means that when extremists speak on the Republican side, it's clear they're extremists -- because we know what "mainstream" is. But when extremists speak on the Democratic side, it's not clear they're extremists -- because the general picture we get of the party is a bit on the extremist end, and the mainstream isn't speaking up to let us know where they stand. The mainstream will have to define itself in order to influence swing voters -- the mainstream, not the extreme, will pull in those votes. But at this point, the only way the mainstream is going to define itself is by distancing itself from the extremists. Since the picture we've already had painted for us is the Howard Dean version of the Democratic party, the mainstream will have to not simply say where it stands, but how it's different from the extremists that have so far dominated as the voice of the left.

The worst part is, I don't think the Democratic mainstream intends to. They're too focused on winning the election (which, to them, means holding the "angry left" vote) to speak up about their own principles.

Goob, to clarify because you are misrepresenting what I said IN THIS THREAD

Well, in general I agree that it is some what unfair to grab things form other threads and comment on them. Because I doubt anyone here has been able to remain 100% consistent from point to point. But I wasn't trying to draw a contradiction, only a pattern. So I do think that in trying to show a trend I didn't really step outside of bounds to include a few other comments that took place in other threads. Perhaps my original reply would have been best served in a Private message.

When American liberals find themselves in such company, promoting the same propaganda and often appearing to be wishing for the same conclusion (granted, for entirely different reasons), shouldn't a lightbulb be illuminating somewhere that certain bedfellows are more than just strange, they are obscene.

I disagree. Kerry and most public Dems think that we now have to see it through to the end. It would be disastrous to pull out now and most Dems voice this opinion; while most in these other groups think that we should leave now. As Bush eluded too in his speech today, regardless of how you felt about the start of the war, the historians are now the ones who will determine if starting the war was right or wrong. Now itâ??s the path we have taken and the majority of the public Dems concur that it needs to be seen through to the end.

Now when talking about not publicly disagreeing with the warâ??s creation because it agrees with our â??enemyâ?

Responding to the off-topic point:

[quote]You yourself in another thread made fun of the saying â??Allah Akbarâ?