The left can dish it out but it can't take it

Tough love for the Democrats

Published on August 6, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

I find it amazing that the group of people most identified with worshipping the first amendment seem to be the ones most intolerant of opinions other than their own. For months we've seen left wing groups like MoveOn.org creating anti-Bush commercials that are only vaguely factual. Celebrities have lent their voices to unseating George W. Bush. Bruce Springsteen, for example, is currently doing a "Get Bush Out" concert tour (John Mellencamp wrote a song called "Bush is just another thug"). Heck, I can barely watch TV without some half-witted celebrity telling me that Bush needs to go. This summer, we've had Fahrenheit 9/11 making over a hundred millions dollars and seen Michael Moore's mug on almost every magazine cover at one point or other. In short, the left has certainly had its opportunity to get its views out.

But when conservatives try to get their message out, the left cries foul. Listening to the left, you'd think that Fox News was GOP TV. In left-wing land, apparently, if the coverage isn't overtly left-wing it's GOP TV. Sure, The Daily Show with John Stewart tends to be less sympathetic to conservatives than liberals. And CNN, ABC, and NBC tend to prefer to cover social issues that are the strong points of the left. And let's not forget the ridiculous media coverage of the Iraq war that's come from the New York Times and other "mainstream" media outlets. But oh no! Bill O'Reilly at 8pm hates high taxes and is (gasp) a Catholic. It must be GOP TV! Those damn conservatives are able to get their message out on a cable news channel on top of AM radio! The sky is falling!

Meanwhile, conservatives have, for years, had to deal with the reality that most of the people who cover the news have political philosophies that are much different than their own. And while most of those who cover the news try to be fair, their own viewpoints inevitably creep into the news and especially in editorials. Conservatives have had to develop a sort of "Reality check" sense when listening to the news. Liberals, by contrast, apparently are so thin skinned that people like Bill O'Reilly send them into fits of insanity. And don't get them started on Sean Hannity who CO-hosts a show with liberal Alan Colmes. Since when are conservatives allowed to speak at all? Isn't George Will's token appearance on "This Week" enough for those right wing nuts? Sure, "This Week" is hosted by Bill Clinton's former press secretary, but that's fine.

And now this week, the left is going berzerk over the Swift Boat veterans. Cries of unfairness ring loud and clear from the left. Well, as someone who's had to listen to Moore-ons all summer ranting their erroneous "facts" across the net and TV all summer. And had to see snippets of MoveOn.org's venom on TV I say, deal with it. If Kerry hadn't made the cornerstone of his campaign about the 4 months he served in Vietname he wouldn't be vulnerable to the fact that most of the people who served with him don't support him. Are the charges of the Swift Boat veterans unfair? Possibly. But compare that to the whole Bush went AWOL nonsense. Was that fair? At least this is based on some semblance of reality.

The first amendment means that all sides get to speak out. Not just those who hold "correct" opinions. Those people demanding that Bush or conservatives condemn the Swift Boat veterans and what not should be also demanding that Kerry and his supporters condemn Michael Moore and his ilk along with MoveOn.org. But don't expect that to happen. Kerry, after, all, complemented hollywood stars such as Whoopi Goldberg, who, in his presence, made vulgar sexual references to Bush.

So if the left things they're getting treated rough now, then they have no idea what rough behavior is. Perhaps they should start looking at the sewage their supporters have been heaping on the American public for the past half year.

Comments (Page 4)

bakerstreet

on Aug 07, 2004

phynhas: Do you think when primitive humans saw the glaciers retreating at the end of the last ice age, do you think they wondered if maybe their campfires were causing it?

Looking at weather data to prove this is backwards, like trying to prove the cause by showing the effect. You are ASSUMING that the current climate change is somehow unnatural, when historically there have been massive changes, and some in very short amounts of time.

No one is saying that the "globe" isn't "warming", the problem with "global warming" is that no one is bothering to prove that WE are causing it in any convincing way. They simply see us and the weather and correlate the two... why? Well, because we are MAN, and we are the cause of all evils, right?

Sorry for the offtopicitudeosity

vincible

on Aug 07, 2004

The problem with global warming debates is that very few of the political junkies who like to argue about it actually know anything about atmospheric physics.

No one is saying that the "globe" isn't "warming", the problem with "global warming" is that no one is bothering to prove that WE are causing it in any convincing way. They simply see us and the weather and correlate the two... why? Well, because we are MAN

It is indisputable that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a strong warming effect. This is basic physics--any senior undergraduate in a decent physics program could derive it with a bit of thought. We have greatly increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere--this is empirical fact, impossible to debate. These two facts *strongly* suggest that human activity contributes to warming.

The problems is that if you increase CO2 levels, you change things like cloud cover, vegetation, and so on, making accurate predictions difficult. And most of the scientific effort goes into modelling that. But it is highly suggestive that when CO2 levels began increasing, global temperatures began increasing as well. And right now climate models are getting to be sophisticated enough that they are making predictions about things like ocean temperature which can be measured, and observed to be correct. In short, they've gotten pretty good. And these models predict quite a bit of warming due to human activity.

Finally, a large majority of scientists agree that human activity contributes to warming. When I say this, I'm not citing the "trusted sources" that Brad loves to decry. I'm looking at what gets published in scientific journals.

psychx

on Aug 07, 2004

Finally, a large majority of scientists agree that human activity contributes to warming. When I say this, I'm not citing the "trusted sources" that Brad loves to decry. I'm looking at what gets published in scientific journals.

Which is why 60 prominent scientists are protesting this administrations policies so vehemently. It's incredible how science is being pushed to the side based on political agenda. You can't just dismiss 48 Nobel laureates opinions as unimportant, I think the very fact they are protesting is significant and an indicator to what is going on with the policies that are undermining their research. These are some of the brightest minds in the world...

phynhas

on Aug 08, 2004

We should perhaps start a different thread for this, but I'll post my reply here anyway because I'm lazy;

As Vincible said, there are two points which are difficult to refute; A) 'Greenhouse gasses' are aptly named, and cause a warming effect which increases in proportion with amount.

Human activity has been shown to have increased the amount of these gasses by a significant amount.

Now, it is possible that this is all very natural. Geologic methane from vulcanism, CO2 emitting from calcium carbonate (limerock) in response to local climate change, massive plankton die-off, all are suspected of causing global climate changes in the past, long before the appearance of Man, and similar to what we are seeing now. In fact 17,000 years is about right for a normal interglacial warming period to run it's course, and perhaps the warming which we are experiencing now, the odd weather, the unusual migratory patterns of species, are simply the normal warm-up which occurs before the glacial period (ice age) returns. Perhaps this is all true. None of the usual suspects happen to be be in play in this case, of course, with the possible exception of die-off in phytoplankton (which could be caused by warming, rather than causing it), but there may be some natural mechanism for warming which is yet to be discovered.

You are right to say that noone really knows if this warming, which has been taking place for about the last century, and increasing exponentially, is natural, or the result of human activity. I personally do not take such a cavalier approach with the fate of all of civilization. I believe that when we place our heads in the sand, we are playing dice with not just our species, but all species. The earth is warming, that much is certain. There is good evidence that human activity has a large hand in it. But maybe not.

Is it sound business practice to pretend that everything is okay? Do they teach in business school that it's not a good thing to anticipate future consequences to certain actions? No, and with good reason. I don't believe industry is resisting these findings simply because they are worried about the economic impact of having to change our practices. Heavy industry interests routinely block funding for research in these matters. Not policy, not changes to law or codes which would affect them; just research. And yet these same 'conservative' business interests have no problem convincing the federal government to spend $180,000 in 'research' grants to measure the viscosity of ketchup in order to facilitate easier pouring. I think the problem goes deeper than mere disagreement on business matters.

I think it is an emotional issue for many. Noone wants to live next to a polluting factory. Noone can tell me that driving through northern New Jersey, or walking along an expressway in Los Angeles during rush hour, is a pleasant experience, at least not with a straight face. But we pretend that it's normal, even desireable, we make jokes about 'fresh air' and what's in the water. Everyone knows, deep down, that we are adversely affecting the entire natural world. It's just a matter of whether or not you care. I would respect someone more who said, honestly, 'Sure, things are bad, but I just don't care; it's too much trouble, or I'll lose too much money, to do anything about it.'

At what point will it be okay to be concerned about the environment, according to Rush Limbaugh, without being labeled a 'kook' or a tree-hugger? How hot will it have to get? How much smog will there be? How much of our forests will be gone? How will I know when I'm right? Well, maybe, hopefully, never. Maybe the talk show hosts, industry analysts, politicians, and purse-string 'scientists' are all right, and it's just a case of Chicken-Little hysteria. Maybe it's no more important that a drunken bar bet, and when someone finally wins, we'll just shake hands and be on our merry way.

I prefer that we preserve the status quo in regards to keeping the earth capable of sustaining life, rather than live on a greenhouse hellhole rock with surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead, ala' Venus. Call me old-fashioned... or maybe I'm just conservative.

whosyurdaddy0417

on Aug 08, 2004

Draginol I bow before you. I feel like I wrote that post! Wow! It is amazing how few people see that the mainstream media is biased to the point of exclusion to leftist philosophy. Thank you for pointing it out in a non-boisterous manner. In the end it is all about the issues baby!

notsohighlyevolved

on Aug 08, 2004

As far as i know the left hasn't possessed any influence within the United States for the last 50 years. Didn't you guys hunt them all down and metaphorically beat them into submission?

I don't know how the cultural elite in America can be called leftist without the whole world lighting up with laughter. Multi-million dollar film and record contracts, fast cars and women, the odd concert here and there to show they "care" and "paying back their dues to society". If this is the "left" you're talking about you obviously missed out on that whole Lenin-Trotsky-Castro thing, you know, the nationalisation of private enterprise, violent upheavals in modes of production, wealth redistribution, the restriction of free speech and uncensored education, enslavement of whole populations to feed the economic needs of the state, etc. Is this the "left" you're speaking of, or are you talking about liberals, because if your talking about liberals you need to clean up your political speech, the two are not synonymous, they're not even remotely similar.

Someone show me the significant difference between the Republicans and the Democrats and i'll show you the mathematical proof for the unified field theory.

Marco

PS: Why did Bush stall for so long after finding out about the World Trade Centre attacks, is that the look you want on your leader's face when your nation is under attack, he looked like a fool because he is a fool or was that just "creative editing"?

Pearlcaster

on Aug 08, 2004

There is no such thing as a correct or incorrect political stance, they are all valid in their own way

Not as valid as the one that's enforced at the point of a gun. That simple expedient usually reduces the quantity of hot-air expended in a political campaign by a significant degree, and if the guns are pointed at all participants equally then there's no cause for complaints of unfair treatment. And as we all know, absolute equality in everything is what Americans most want. Right? (or Left?)

From the Editorial desk of the Campaign for the Political Re-education of America.

~~DivasRule~~

Daiwa

on Aug 09, 2004

Everett Lee's link, which he claims demonstrates the Swiftboat Vets claims are a "sham" leads to a rather interesting page, which does nothing of the sort. No way to tell who/what MMFA is, or who "K.B. & N.C." are. And the "proof" offered amounts to nothing more than splitting hairs by pointing out that the vets, who put their names & mugs in those ads for all to see, didn't serve "on the same boat", leaving you with the implication that they therefore could not possibly be telling the truth, but no factual information contradicting what they've had to say. The doctor "didn't sign the form"? What a crock of whoey. Then, without disclosing their own pedigree & financing, they lambast the group for having NIXON ties? Get real. I'm frankly a bit disappointed in John McCain for so quickly dismissing this, high-minded as his motive may have been, considering the freakin mountains of dung the opposition has been heaping on Bush for months on end. They cry "LIBEL"? How can anything be more libelous than claiming that a sitting President has "betrayed" his country? I frankly admire the way GWB has simply ignored all of it and failed to dignify it with a response, no matter how much my gut wishes he would pull a Cheney & tell 'em where they can stick it. Obviously, my application for a position at the State Department was quietly shelved.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Sam

on Aug 09, 2004

While not serving on the same boat, they served in the same group, which consists of several boats working in formation. To claim that men who spent weeks and months 10 yards from Kerry and shared a base 'may have served at the same time but they did not serve with him' is complete and utter baloney.

Not to mention the fact that Kerry's personal journalist concocted a story in the Boston Globe saying that one of the veterans withdrew his stance on Kerry, when nothing of the sort took place, and the veteran in question signed an affidavit stating so.

Sure it's funded by Republicans. Who the hell else would fund it? Democrats? Green Party members? The fact of the matter is that the funding does not go to the vets, but to purchase airtime. The vets are NOT all Republicans. What they are are dozens of men who say they saw with their own eyes how Kerry lied on several occasions to garner medals, including chalking up a shrapnel wound in the ass from a grenade he threw himself while not engaged in any sort of fighting as a hit from an enemy, getting a Bronze Star. He got another one after he first fled the scene when another swift boat ran a mine, and returned once every other boat in the group was already fishing out survivors. He then picks up a guy (anyone else could have done this, and would have, if Kerry's boat had run away a bit farther), and later writes up a report which includes nonexistent enemy machine gun fire for a stretch of 5 kilometers. Oddly enough, no one else remembers being fired upon for over three miles, nor did any of the boats have bullet holes in them, nor did anyone get hurt or shoot back (except briefly when the mine went off, and they were expecting an ambush). Again, Kerry gets a medal.

Then he goes back to the states and throws those medals away, and calls his fellow soldiers war criminals (does that make him a war con artist then, having earned his medals by making shit up?).

They have a right to be pissed off at him. And considering Kerry can't shut up about his service in Vietnam for more than 40 seconds, and claims that his service makes him more suited to be president, then I think they have a right to voice their opinions.

And after Fahrenheit 9/11, it's time to shut up and let other people speak.

vincible

on Aug 09, 2004

I wonder, if this is true, why it wouldn't have come out decades ago. He was a national figure during the Vietnam war, with many political enemies. And he's been in dozens of elections, a few of them very nasty.

Certainly his record isn't everything he wants us to believe it is, but it's hard to believe that it's actually a *bad* record.

bakerstreet

on Aug 09, 2004

Vincible: I think that had he not spent so much time and effort portraying himself as a hero for the four months he spent in Vietnam, and so little time presenting the 20+ years he spent in Congress, that this wouldn't have been an issue at all. People like McCain are right that someone's service shouldn't be an issue 30 years later, but frankly Kerry has made it an issue by making it such a huge "character reference".

I think anyone can see that the 3 quick purple hearts in four months and a ticket home is fishy, though I can' t condemn anyone for getting the heck out of dodge in that war. When you are trying to make it expemplary of you character, though, I just can't see that he has much to point to. He pulled one guy into a boat. Whether he was under fire or not, I find it difficult to believe that everyone that pulled a fellow soldier into a boat under fire got a silver star.

If anything, the swift boat veterans should be spotlighting the fact that even if they are 100% wrong, and everything Kerry says is true, his service in Vietnam has about as much to do with his ability to lead the nation as my performance in 4th grade... As I have said elsewhere, if he were applying for a regular job, the last 20+ years of service would far, far outwiegh his anecdotal, four month service in a war 30+ years ago...

Sam

on Aug 09, 2004

"PS: Why did Bush stall for so long after finding out about the World Trade Centre attacks, is that the look you want on your leader's face when your nation is under attack, he looked like a fool because he is a fool or was that just "creative editing"?"

No, creative editorializing. Here's an excellent example of that, by Bill Whittle:

"Robert Wayne Jernigan is now 28 years old. People who knew him said he was quiet, somewhat stand-offish. He was not widely liked in high school.

Four years ago, a witness reported seeing Jernigan enter a building in a remote suburb of Dallas with an axe. Four people were found dead at the scene, including a nine year old girl. No charges were filed. Less than two days later, Jernigan turned up again, this time at the scene of a suspicious fire in a day care center. Miraculously, no one was injured. But it was just a matter of time.

During the next several weeks, it is possible to place Jernigan at the scene of no less than thirteen suspicious fires. Eleven people died. Eyewitnesses were unshakable in their determination that Jernigan had been on the scene. And yet the police did nothing.

Jernigan had long been fascinated with fire. A search of his apartment revealed fireman-related magazines, posters and memorabilia. Despite the deaths of fifteen people, despite repeated eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence placing Jernigan at these fires, no criminal charges were ever filed against Robert Wayne Jernigan. He remains a free man to this day.

And rightfully so. Because Robert Wayne Jernigan is an ordinary fireman for the Dallas Fire Department.* He is not a serial arsonist at all.

Now re-read the previous paragraphs and tell me where I lied.

Everything I told you was factually true. But the spin, the context, the misdirection… The press always reports serial killers with all three names – Robert Wayne Jernigan sounds a hell of a lot more ominous than Bobby Jernigan. Quiet, stand-offish, not widely liked – instant psychopath, if you read the papers. Entered the building with an axe – oooh! That ought to get the blood boiling. That the people had died from smoke inhalation I decided was irrelevant to the story…"

Bush 'stalled' for seven minutes after the aide whispered the news into his ear. As someone pointed out elsewhere, how do you know what was said? 'The second tower has been hit. The military has been notified. Air Force One will be ready in 10 minutes'.

Go walk around the block twice. Time yourself. Then, explain to everyone here what YOU would do in seven minutes that would make a lick of difference? Say, 'hey kids, tough shit, but I gotta go pace back and forth till they prep my plane.'

Do you even understand how the chain of command works? In case of an emergency, the Joint Chiefs of Staff assess the situation, and present the Commander-in-Chief with options (if any) to react. All of this is fed by different branches of the military, and also law-enforcement and intelligence agencies.

This isn't Starcraft where you defeat the Zerg if you start clicking your finger ten seconds after you're attacked. Seven minutes in the chaos that was the morning of 9/11 is a blink.

But of course, this is thinking about something too hard. It was so much easier to just listen to Michael Moore make fun of his 'inaction'. Ha-ha, what an incompetent doofus. 'Seven minutes'... let it sink in... cut to new scene of embellished truth or complete red herrings, like the coast of Washington lacking patrols, as if al Qaida needs to swim over with the world's longest land border just a few hundred miles to the north.

Moore is a demagogue, a propagandist, and a duplicitous scumbag who 'embellishes' just about everything that comes out of his mouth, and shamelessly calls his 'fictition' a documentary.

bakerstreet

on Aug 09, 2004

The "7 minutes" thing is the worst partisan politics I have seen so far in this election, with the possilbe exception of all this blaming the election for terror atlerts. I consider anyone that offers it as some statement on Bush an ignorant asshole, frankly.

It just shows how far Bush's staunchest opponents will fall to get their way. I hope people see them for what they are instead.

vincible

on Aug 09, 2004

BakerStreet, I'm not questioning its importance. But I'm questioning why, if the story is essentially true, someone wouldn't have brought it up in a previous election, or to discredit him during the testimony to the Senate which made him famous in the first place. He certainly has had enough enemies. And it's not like this is the first time his war record has been an issue in an election.

It's the same reason I treat the Bush AWOL claims with suspicion.

bakerstreet

on Aug 09, 2004

vincible: No, you misunderstand. I think if Kerry hadn't banked his election on his 4 months of service, it WOULDN'T be important, frankly. I think it would be recieving the same play as Bush's service.

In essence, he is the one that has made it noteworthy, not the swift boat vets. No one considered his service important until he started using it as the focus of his resume. I think that is why people are only now bothering to say much about it.

I can say without hesitation that his speech at the Democratic convention was a shock to me. I'm really suprised that more people didn't see it for the diversionary drek that it was. Those who did are calling him on it now.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!