AlpineK Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Last I heard Dole is a vet of WW2 not Viet Nam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Last I heard Dole is a vet of WW2 not Viet Nam. Exactly. Fairweather's link reveals that an even more respectable vet is disgusted with the Swiftboat Vets for Deception add: McCain has condemned the ads and called on the president to do so, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Rove and cronies have another even more politically destructive advertising blitz aimed at eroding Kerry's potential support from veterans. This one takes sound bytes from Kerry's 1971 testimony concerning the ugliness of war. Kerry will never downlive this part of his political career, which is potentially more damaging in veteran's eyes than Bush's unaccounted service in Alabama. It hits at the reptile (survival instinct) and mammalian brains, i.e., at the gut level and feelings. That's all it takes since many do not take things up to the next level by processing with the neocortex--higher thinking level. Politics boils down largely to how you feel about issues, which is why the Repubs can garnish support from lower income people who do not largely benefit from Repubs fiscal/financial plan. Repubs simply play the social issue card, e.g., gay marriage, and that becomes the overriding factor that tips the scale in Repubs favor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Last I heard Dole is a vet of WW2 not Viet Nam. Wow! You're pretty sharp AK. I guess I just missed your point...or you missed mine. Dole spent several months in a hospital recovering from his wounds suffered at Anzio. You can take it from there..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 That's all it takes since many do not take things up to the next level by processing with the neocortex--higher thinking level. This (inaccurate)lesson about brain function brought to you by....."Stonehead". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Last I heard Dole is a vet of WW2 not Viet Nam. Wow! You're pretty sharp AK. I guess I just missed your point...or you missed mine. Dole spent several months in a hospital recovering from his wounds suffered at Anzio. You can take it from there..... Seeing as Dole wasn't in Viet Nam I can't imagine why his oppinion counts for anything. Also your lover GW said today that Kerry served honorably. And there's a mountain of evidence that these Swift Boat poseurs are all lying sacks of shit. The only good thing for GW is that Carl Rove has got Kerry to spend add money he would have saved for October. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted August 24, 2004 Author Share Posted August 24, 2004 Uh, if you're going to present a flat-out lie to sway the electorate, I'd say that's pretty swinish. Sorry if you don't like the word, or if for some reason, you're unable to figure it out for yourself. ------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 That's all it takes since many do not take things up to the next level by processing with the neocortex--higher thinking level. This (inaccurate)lesson about brain function brought to you by....."Stonehead". Fairweather, you seem to live in a little world where your imagination, creativity and cognition are limited, i.e., the world of the conservative. Have you never heard of the amygdala, that almond-shaped organ in your brain? Let's expand your mind. The role of thinking in voter behavior: Cognitive Science Designs Political Ads Excerpt: According to Rick Farmer and Jeffrey Fox, co-authors of the essay “A Behavioral Approach to Political Advertising Research”, research in cognitive science can help answer the question. First, however, it should be explained what many, scholars, pundits, and the public would like to see in public advertisements, the normative model. Popular among political scientists, it argues that voters make decisions about candidates based on as much information as they can find. With this information, they rank it according to its utility, or its value it has for them, and they make a decision. So, for instance, it assumes that before an election, you find out about, say, the candidates’ positions and compare which you think is the best for you. Behavioral Decision Theory (BDT), a branch of cognitive science, is, according to Rick Farmer, a professor of political science at the University of Akron, more realistic in understanding voter behavior. It assumes that voters are cognitive misers. That is, they use as little effort as possible to process political information. Also, the effort you use is not used equally for all tasks; rather, the tasks that are more important, remembering where you left the winning lottery ticket or finding a reliable pregnancy test, those topics and events that are more personal and important, require more thought and therefore you’re likely consider more rationally. BDT, Fox and Farmer believe, can be used more effectively at understanding voter behavior. An alternate model can be developed based on viewing political parties as cults: Sex, Drugs, and Cults. An evolutionary psychology perspective on why and how cult memes get a drug-like hold on people, and what might be done to mitigate the effects Excerpt: In the aggregate, memes constitute human culture. Most are useful. But a whole class of memes (cults, ideologies, etc.) have no obvious replication drivers. Why are some humans highly susceptible to such memes? Evolutionary psychology is required to answer this question. Two major evolved psychological mechanisms emerge from the past to make us susceptible to cults. Capture-bonding exemplified by Patty Hearst and the Stockholm Syndrome is one. Attention-reward is the other. Attention is the way social primates measure status. Attention indicates status and is highly rewarding because it causes the release of brain chemicals such as dopamine and endorphins. Actions lead to Attention that releases Rewarding brain chemicals. Drugs shortcut attention in the Action-Attention-Reward (AAR) brain system and lead to the repeated behaviour we call addiction. Gambling also causes misfiring of the AAR pathway. Memes that manifest as cults hijack this brain reward system by inducing high levels of attention behaviour between cult members. People may become irresponsible on either cults or drugs sometimes resulting in severe damage to reproductive potential. Evolutionary psychology thus answers the question of why humans are susceptible to memes that do them and/or their potential for reproductive success damage. We evolved the psychological traits of capture-bonding and attention-reward that make us vulnerable for other maladaptive functions. We should be concerned about predator and pathogen memes and the mechanisms that make us vulnerable. The possibility of modeling important social factors contributing to the spread of dangerous cult memes is discussed. The history of the author’s experiences that led to understanding the connection between drugs and cults is related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Wow! You're pretty sharp AK. I guess I just missed your point...or you missed mine. Dole spent several months in a hospital recovering from his wounds suffered at Anzio. You can take it from there..... Fairweather, if you think Dole is the real deal, why don't you write him in? Sure he was severely wounded, but we're not comparing his misfortune to our next President's. Let's continue to examine the only two possibilities instead of continually talking about Clinton's lack of combat duty or Dole's serious injuries. Furthermore, whether or not you think Dole is even remotely qualified to judge Kerry's combat record, you must admit that those who served IMMEDIATELY next to him are MOST QUALIFIED (as in the account Will pasted above). The guy I'm pretty sure you're voting for doesn't have a combat record. He has a criminal record... is that the kind of thing you admire? Kerry volunteered for combat when the frat boy you're going to vote for was probably AWOL. Why don't you just be honest and say, "George W. is a miserable excuse for a leader, probably a poorer choice than Kerry, but I'm going to vote for him because of what his party represents." That would be refreshingly honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 No Dru, the Reuters reporters are there witnessing the truth, while the fox reporters read republican printouts while standing in front of a fake Iraq background. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Damn, Pope. What a lucid and refreshing point of view. You cut right through the Gordian knot, right to the heart of the issue. But P. Buchanan believes otherwise... WHERE THE RIGHT WENT WRONG: How Neoconservatives Subverted The Reagan Revolution And Hijacked the Bush Presidency Look at the choice quotes listed at the link, like this one: “[A] civil war is going to break out inside the Republican Party along the old trench lines of the Goldwater-Rockefeller wars of the 1960s, a war for the heart and soul and future of the party for the new century.” (234) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 He's not the only one prediciting or even witnessing the beginnings of a rift within/battle for the Republican Party but within the neocon circle itself. If you follow this sort of thing, you know who Fukuyama is. Steve Clemons has a great article on his foreign policy blog site The Washington Note. Steve is a very astute and connected commentator. You may not agree with his particular opinions, but they are insighful nevertheless. Steve is the exec VP of the New America Foundation think tank. He has another fascinating look at Who Are the Real NeoCons? Good stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 One thing is for sure. The Republicans have been much better at appealing to the more primitive brain functions of the electorate as Stonehead has shown. The Dems have been too reluctant to sink to the level of their opponents, but ultimately, they must. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Fuck all yall. Yall kiss my ass. Vote Republican if yall know whats good fer ya. Peace out. True Believer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I wouldn't say that Left has shied away from those tactics at all. Break the current tactic down and what you have is: Casting Doubt. The allegations or insinuations don't have to be true, but if they are repeated often enough, they at the very least cast doubt. You're seeing that with the Swift Boat Vets. You also have seen that though the "Bush was AWOL" , Saudi Royals-Bush Family connections, Halliburton/oil war, and others. Moore's film was full of this sort of thing. To me, the right wing is just alot better at this sort of thing than the left. They both do it. The right is also more blatant and conniving about it IMO, but that's what makes them better at it. Pope, that next to last sentence is a masterpiece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 (edited) Double post Edited August 24, 2004 by willstrickland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Why don't you just be honest and say, "George W. is a miserable excuse for a leader, probably a poorer choice than Kerry, but I'm going to vote for him because of what his party represents." That would be refreshingly honest. Pope, Why don't you just be honest with yourself and say, "John Kerry will probably be a miserable, indecisive, waffling excuse for a leader who has no real plan other than his own self-gratification, passed no legislation of note during his 20 year senate tenure, and once sold out his fellow soldiers still fighting in Vietnam before a senate committee..... and the only reason I'm still voting for him is that I hate George W Bush"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Pope, Why don't you just be honest with yourself and say, "John Kerry will probably be a miserable, indecisive, waffling excuse for a leader who has no real plan other than his own self-gratification, passed no legislation of note during his 20 year senate tenure, and once sold out his fellow soldiers still fighting in Vietnam before a senate committee..... and the only reason I'm still voting for him is that I hate George W Bush"? Fairweather, Why don't you just be honest with yourself and say, "George W Bush is a leader who passes off stubborness for decisivesness, has no other compass to evaluate plans by but naked politics, who has no real plan other than his own self-deification and feeding the hands of his corporate cronies, passed no legislation of note during his 4 year term as governor, waffled drunkenly for decades when others were involved in the politics of their nation, pawned off family contacts to business "success" ..... and the only reason I'm still voting for him is that I hate the Democratic Party"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 So who would be your first, next choice for president? McCain? Nader? Brown? Liebermann? Dean? Surely Kerry isn't your first choice? I will be honest and state that there are probably several Republicans I would prefer to Bush.....But they aint' running! BTW, Cj, Governors typically don't write legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 People who assiduously avoided service in Vietnam: Dick Cheney (five deferments) John Ashcroft (seven deferments) George Bush (a comfy spot in the Texas National Guard, and a mysterious gap in his records [not to mention sealed Texas driving records]) Men who served their country in Vietnam in combat: John McCain (listed here as a man of honor smeared by the Bush team, not as a Republican) Max Cleland John Kerry The former are liars and thieves who, given their choice of actions and the words they take great pains to employ, are unfit to call themselves "men" - let alone Patriots. For the sake of financial gain at any cost for the benefit of the few, the lot of them are willing to sell this country to the highest bidder (or give it away wholesale to cronies with no bids). Patriotism, Moral Authority - they are befret of the first and bankrupt of the second. I served two back-to-back tours in Vietnam and am here to tell you the latter named men (emphasis on "men") served their country with distinction in combat. Kerry didn't betray "us" on his return to the states - he spoke for us, as we did in turn on our return home. The vets that feel otherwise are wrapped up in their own experience/memories and not are not now and never were interested in looking at the what the war was really about and the cost to our military, country, and to the Vietnamese people. Vote for the cowards, thieves, and liars if you must - but they are the most activist, reckless, and cowardly group of men to ever assume power in this country. Nixon, Kissenger & Co. were intellectual giants and full of good intent compared to this crew. I have no doubt Eisenhower rolls over in his grave at the mere idea of a person like W. in the highest office of the land. W. and his whole crew are an embarrassment to the Republican party and to our nation. No Republican who truly holds the best interests of this country in mind or has any knowledge of party history would vote for these fools; only those with vested interests would (and one can only pity poor Colin Powell in this line up). In other words, be sure to rush out and re-elect the first drunken, cowardly cheerleader (and his corporate handlers) to assume and manipulate the Presidency of the United States of America. He and they degrade our military capability and national security with every passing day. And make no mistake, the Middle East is not Vietnam - we got off lucky there from the standpoint of reaping limited, strategic security reprecussions from bumbling our way through that fiasco, that will not be the case this time. P.S. Be honest, does that all sound bitter...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I wouldn't say that Left has shied away from those tactics at all. Break the current tactic down and what you have is: Casting Doubt. in general, progressives do not make stuff up to cast doubt. the smear campaigns orchestrated by conservatives have reached nauseating levels long ago. there is simply no comparison. The allegations or insinuations don't have to be true, but if they are repeated often enough, they at the very least cast doubt. You're seeing that with the Swift Boat Vets. to be repeated long enough, the charges have to be picked up by the mainstream media in some way. name *one* smear campaign orchestrated by progressives that was picked up the mainstream media? You also have seen that though the "Bush was AWOL" do you mean to say he wasn't? his published record does not account for several month he was supposed to serve and nobody has stepped up to confirm he was present. i believe that for someone who started a war of agression and has little problem sending people to war, this is a point of utmost relevance. Saudi Royals-Bush Family connections, do you mean to say the bush and the saudi royal family aren't on a first name basis. do you mean to say that bush and cronies aren't deep in business dealings with the saudis? do you mean to say that saudis do not own 7% of investments in the US? are not these relevant facts to a discussion of 9/11? Halliburton/oil war, and others. do you mean to say that halliburton has not profited from the unnecessary privatization of armed forces, no-bid cost-plus contracts in war zones and board members like cheney who appear to be unable to ever recognize ethical conflicts where policy-makers and business men are one and the same? let's not mention the billions of dollars disappeared. Moore's film was full of this sort of thing. as you said yourself, repeating a lie often enough is designed to, at least, cast doubt. good try but no, moore's film wasn't full of this sort of thing. can you provide an example of something moore made up to smear bush? To me, the right wing is just alot better at this sort of thing than the left. They both do it. no, progressives, don't do what conservatives and their media did to clinton, maccleland, maccain, etc ... name just one major smear campaign orchestrated by progressives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I heard John Kerry was behind the recent theft of "The Scream" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 That's the second time I've heard this. So it must be true! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Forty-six percent (46%) of those surveyed by the Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll now believe John Kerry is either exaggerating the truth (31%) or lying (15%) about his experiences in Vietnam while only thirty-nine percent (39%) now believe Senator Kerry is telling the truth. And that's before the public has had a chance to digest Kerry-Edwards' new admission that John Kerry's first Purple Heart may have been improperly awarded for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound and that Senator Kerry's own journal records that his boat had not been fired upon at the time of the supposed "engagement" for which that Purple Heart was awarded. ( link ) Unfortunately you have to watch the video until the very end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b-rock Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 What are you saying, that when the bush repeats lies over and over that the ever intelligent people of this country fall for them? Good analysis! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.