Like father, like son
March 24, 2004 5:40 AM Subscribe
Try reading the link. It's an important point.
The best way to see the absurdity of saying that John Kerry voted for higher taxes 350 times is to apply Bush's madcap logic to Bush himself. Every year, in the president's budget, there is a table called "Effect of Proposals on Receipts." It lists the president's proposed changes in the tax rules and how they will affect government revenues for various periods up to 15 years. Most of Bush's proposals will cost revenues, obviously. But in the four fiscal years 2002-2005, Bush has proposed 63 actual "revenue enhancers," as his father used to call them. This doesn't include, as Bush includes for Kerry, his opposition to any tax cuts (and there have been some, such as Democratic proposals to reduce the payroll tax). Nor does the list seem to include any "supply-side" revenue enhancement by magic or growth. These are actual proposals to take more money out of people's pockets and give it to the government.
At Bush's current rate of 16 "tax increases" a year, he'd have 320 under his belt if he could stay in the White House for 20 years. Depending on how you figure—but without wandering beyond Bush himself into the jungles of absurd logic—this is as many as eight times the number that Bush has managed to pin on Kerry.
posted by Slagman at 5:43 AM on March 24, 2004
The best way to see the absurdity of saying that John Kerry voted for higher taxes 350 times is to apply Bush's madcap logic to Bush himself. Every year, in the president's budget, there is a table called "Effect of Proposals on Receipts." It lists the president's proposed changes in the tax rules and how they will affect government revenues for various periods up to 15 years. Most of Bush's proposals will cost revenues, obviously. But in the four fiscal years 2002-2005, Bush has proposed 63 actual "revenue enhancers," as his father used to call them. This doesn't include, as Bush includes for Kerry, his opposition to any tax cuts (and there have been some, such as Democratic proposals to reduce the payroll tax). Nor does the list seem to include any "supply-side" revenue enhancement by magic or growth. These are actual proposals to take more money out of people's pockets and give it to the government.
At Bush's current rate of 16 "tax increases" a year, he'd have 320 under his belt if he could stay in the White House for 20 years. Depending on how you figure—but without wandering beyond Bush himself into the jungles of absurd logic—this is as many as eight times the number that Bush has managed to pin on Kerry.
posted by Slagman at 5:43 AM on March 24, 2004
nothing new here.
http://www.bushlies.com/
and yes, this thread is being monitored by the FBI, CIA, ATF and NTSB.
posted by omidius at 5:46 AM on March 24, 2004
http://www.bushlies.com/
and yes, this thread is being monitored by the FBI, CIA, ATF and NTSB.
posted by omidius at 5:46 AM on March 24, 2004
Sorry for the quip, slagman.
I wasn't slagging on your post. I just suddenly felt that there was something nearly comforting about a politician lying, something dependable and almost elemental, like the sun rising in the East and setting in the West. And something wonderfully predictable about the herds of human cattle switching channels away from reality to watch reality TV. Then of course I was immediately horrified by my reaction.
It is a very good point indeed, not just more BushFilter.
posted by Shane at 5:49 AM on March 24, 2004
I wasn't slagging on your post. I just suddenly felt that there was something nearly comforting about a politician lying, something dependable and almost elemental, like the sun rising in the East and setting in the West. And something wonderfully predictable about the herds of human cattle switching channels away from reality to watch reality TV. Then of course I was immediately horrified by my reaction.
It is a very good point indeed, not just more BushFilter.
posted by Shane at 5:49 AM on March 24, 2004
If I promise to vote for Kerry can I not read that incredibly detailed and boring article? Yes? Thank you.
posted by Outlawyr at 6:04 AM on March 24, 2004
posted by Outlawyr at 6:04 AM on March 24, 2004
I agree with point of the article - that disingenuousness in a political campaign is shabby and equivalent to lying. Regrettably, it is the norm and the American people accept it. It is for this very reason that I think it is nearly impossible for a US Senator to be elected President. Over a ten to twelve year tour of duty they will have made thousands of votes - hundreds of which can be contorted and re-interpreted through negative campaigning to make the candidate "pro-taxation" or "against the elderly" or "anti-education", etc.
posted by krtzmrk at 6:14 AM on March 24, 2004
posted by krtzmrk at 6:14 AM on March 24, 2004
Dean had the best reply to this line of "they'll raise your taxes" sloganeering. How much have your local real estate taxes increased? How much has tuition increased? How has the shift of burden from Federal to State impacted your daily life? Expose the supply siders as a shell game...
posted by machaus at 6:26 AM on March 24, 2004
posted by machaus at 6:26 AM on March 24, 2004
Try reading the link. It's an important point.
it definitely is.
but today the Front Page is chock-full of Bush-related links. I don't really see why you couldn't have posted the (very good, by the way) Kinsley link as a comment in one of the many Bush threads still open. just that. I like AtriosFilter, but still we shouldn't turn the Front Page into a one-issue thing.
again, no offense intended. I liked the link.
posted by matteo at 6:31 AM on March 24, 2004
it definitely is.
but today the Front Page is chock-full of Bush-related links. I don't really see why you couldn't have posted the (very good, by the way) Kinsley link as a comment in one of the many Bush threads still open. just that. I like AtriosFilter, but still we shouldn't turn the Front Page into a one-issue thing.
again, no offense intended. I liked the link.
posted by matteo at 6:31 AM on March 24, 2004
It is a very good point indeed, not just more BushFilter.
See, I completely disagree. Just because someone or something makes a good point doesn't mean posting it isn't BushFilter. As matteo suggests, it's the overwhelming number of "Bush baaad" MetaFilter posts that's the problem, not necessarily the content of any given post. Some people love these posts. Many -- including user #1 -- don't.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:40 AM on March 24, 2004
See, I completely disagree. Just because someone or something makes a good point doesn't mean posting it isn't BushFilter. As matteo suggests, it's the overwhelming number of "Bush baaad" MetaFilter posts that's the problem, not necessarily the content of any given post. Some people love these posts. Many -- including user #1 -- don't.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:40 AM on March 24, 2004
[this is horrible]
specialk420 has a post right below this called the future of Metafilter. Is this post the real future of Metafilter the next eight months? Are we going to have a running scorecard on the Front Page every day of each campaign's talking points? Bush lied about Kerry's tax voting record. Kerry lied about foreign leaders. Bush lied about Iraq. Kerry lied about voting for money to support the troops because Bush lied about Iraq. ____ lied about (insert your pathetically nuanced mislabelling of something as lying here).
Can we please do that? I'd love nothing more than to turn this into Yahoo! Politics so I can keep up on the all the latest campaign salvos with the corresponding comments about how the other side is the *real* evil liars.
posted by Seth at 7:00 AM on March 24, 2004
specialk420 has a post right below this called the future of Metafilter. Is this post the real future of Metafilter the next eight months? Are we going to have a running scorecard on the Front Page every day of each campaign's talking points? Bush lied about Kerry's tax voting record. Kerry lied about foreign leaders. Bush lied about Iraq. Kerry lied about voting for money to support the troops because Bush lied about Iraq. ____ lied about (insert your pathetically nuanced mislabelling of something as lying here).
Can we please do that? I'd love nothing more than to turn this into Yahoo! Politics so I can keep up on the all the latest campaign salvos with the corresponding comments about how the other side is the *real* evil liars.
posted by Seth at 7:00 AM on March 24, 2004
wouldn't it be great if only verifiable fact was permitted in campaigning and campaign speeches? automatic disqualification for any speculative or exaggerative utterances. if each candidate were required to fully support, with incontrovertible evidence, each statement in real time as it issues from their lips, live television coverage mandated and television "analysis" prohibited. no television soundtrack, audio filler, sidelong shots of others reactions, just the candidates face, and the candidates words, and the candidates defense proof of same.
posted by quonsar at 7:03 AM on March 24, 2004
posted by quonsar at 7:03 AM on March 24, 2004
oh, and shut up and find something worthwhile to post on the front page, Skot.
posted by quonsar at 7:04 AM on March 24, 2004
posted by quonsar at 7:04 AM on March 24, 2004
oops. apologies to Skot, i meant SETH.
tho both might be applicable
posted by quonsar at 7:05 AM on March 24, 2004
tho both might be applicable
posted by quonsar at 7:05 AM on March 24, 2004
See, I completely disagree. Just because someone or something makes a good point doesn't mean posting it isn't BushFilter.
Heh. I was just about rail into pardonyou? for this. Then I realized that I agree with him. </sheepish>
posted by jpoulos at 8:11 AM on March 24, 2004
Heh. I was just about rail into pardonyou? for this. Then I realized that I agree with him. </sheepish>
posted by jpoulos at 8:11 AM on March 24, 2004
Exercise your right - Don't vote, it only encourages 'em!
posted by LowDog at 8:26 AM on March 24, 2004
posted by LowDog at 8:26 AM on March 24, 2004
Kerry lied about foreign leaders.
Aren't you a good little republican talking-point foot-soldier.
Just like Al Gore claimed to invent the internet , right? Why are you so fucking stupid? Honestly, I'm curious.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:27 AM on March 24, 2004
Aren't you a good little republican talking-point foot-soldier.
Just like Al Gore claimed to invent the internet , right? Why are you so fucking stupid? Honestly, I'm curious.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:27 AM on March 24, 2004
Would it not perhaps be more productive to take note of the relatively few times a politician does not lie?
posted by spazzm at 8:33 AM on March 24, 2004
posted by spazzm at 8:33 AM on March 24, 2004
I'd be offended if I had actually ever posted anything good to the front page.
posted by Skot at 8:36 AM on March 24, 2004
posted by Skot at 8:36 AM on March 24, 2004
Space Coyote,
Obviously you missed the point. I wasn't presenting that list of things for the truth of the matter asserted. My point was that someone could have made a FPP out of a link to an article about Kerry lying about foreign leaders endorsing him or any other talking point that emanates from both parties. Such a post would have about as much useful content and substantive importance as the link that caused this thread. In other words, they would both be crap.
Out of curiosity, did you even read my post? Or did you just take a phrase out of it and try to make a point? I don't see how anyone could read my post as you read it.
posted by Seth at 8:41 AM on March 24, 2004
Obviously you missed the point. I wasn't presenting that list of things for the truth of the matter asserted. My point was that someone could have made a FPP out of a link to an article about Kerry lying about foreign leaders endorsing him or any other talking point that emanates from both parties. Such a post would have about as much useful content and substantive importance as the link that caused this thread. In other words, they would both be crap.
Out of curiosity, did you even read my post? Or did you just take a phrase out of it and try to make a point? I don't see how anyone could read my post as you read it.
posted by Seth at 8:41 AM on March 24, 2004
"...disingenuousness in a political campaign is shabby and equivalent to lying. Regrettably, it is the norm and the American people accept it."
Not only do we accept it, but as Shane's post aptly demonstrates, we expect it.
Shame on us.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:44 AM on March 24, 2004
Not only do we accept it, but as Shane's post aptly demonstrates, we expect it.
Shame on us.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:44 AM on March 24, 2004
Yes, yes, yes.
The article was well-written, well-arged and contained interesting facts I'd not heard before. It was definitely best of the web. I do not even consider it a partisan post.
Sure, it is hard to separate out the fact that it is about politics, or that it is critical of Bush, but the quality of the article transcends that, in my opinion. It would have been a good piece even if it was about a Democrat (and it notes that Democrats commit similar offenses).
Indeed, I invite anyone to post similar links in this thread dissecting the attacks of Democrats on Bush. Show me the Democratic lies. I want to know what they are.
I would like to see both sides deal in facts and not b.s.
I suppose that some people would like to glide through the year looking at the latest Flash art and cute pictures of women with dogs and never let a political thought trouble them, but this is part of what is happening in the world.
The thread was clearly labeled -- it's about Bush and lies.
You don't like it, skip it.
Most of the best stuff on the Web right now is political. If nobody noticed, we're at war, there are crazy assholes blowing shit up, governments are falling, and the chaos meter is in the red. You can stick your fucking heads in the sand or you can take an interest in the future of your country and your world.
Maybe more tax cuts are the answer. Maybe the best man for a job is one who can lie the best. Maybe Kerry would be so bad that he must be stopped by any means necessary. I am willing to entertain any and all arguments in that vein. But I also want to know the facts, and I know I'm not alone.
Now, by all means, go back to your flash cartoons and pictures of women with dogs.
posted by Slagman at 8:52 AM on March 24, 2004
The article was well-written, well-arged and contained interesting facts I'd not heard before. It was definitely best of the web. I do not even consider it a partisan post.
Sure, it is hard to separate out the fact that it is about politics, or that it is critical of Bush, but the quality of the article transcends that, in my opinion. It would have been a good piece even if it was about a Democrat (and it notes that Democrats commit similar offenses).
Indeed, I invite anyone to post similar links in this thread dissecting the attacks of Democrats on Bush. Show me the Democratic lies. I want to know what they are.
I would like to see both sides deal in facts and not b.s.
I suppose that some people would like to glide through the year looking at the latest Flash art and cute pictures of women with dogs and never let a political thought trouble them, but this is part of what is happening in the world.
The thread was clearly labeled -- it's about Bush and lies.
You don't like it, skip it.
Most of the best stuff on the Web right now is political. If nobody noticed, we're at war, there are crazy assholes blowing shit up, governments are falling, and the chaos meter is in the red. You can stick your fucking heads in the sand or you can take an interest in the future of your country and your world.
Maybe more tax cuts are the answer. Maybe the best man for a job is one who can lie the best. Maybe Kerry would be so bad that he must be stopped by any means necessary. I am willing to entertain any and all arguments in that vein. But I also want to know the facts, and I know I'm not alone.
Now, by all means, go back to your flash cartoons and pictures of women with dogs.
posted by Slagman at 8:52 AM on March 24, 2004
In other words, they would both be crap.
Except that "Bush lied about Kerry voting for tax hikes", is true, whereas "Kerry lied about foreign leaders" is a lie. You equated the two hypothetical FPPs, which is what (I think) Space Coyote objected to.
posted by jpoulos at 8:53 AM on March 24, 2004
Except that "Bush lied about Kerry voting for tax hikes", is true, whereas "Kerry lied about foreign leaders" is a lie. You equated the two hypothetical FPPs, which is what (I think) Space Coyote objected to.
posted by jpoulos at 8:53 AM on March 24, 2004
And Seth, I read your post, which clearly showed you had not actually read or understood the link. Sorry it was over your head.
posted by Slagman at 8:54 AM on March 24, 2004
posted by Slagman at 8:54 AM on March 24, 2004
I am dumbfounded by the amount of bad faith that I am reading from you people.
This is an article talking about a campaign claim, which, though technically true, is clearly misleading. But what is the title of the post? Bush lies about taxes. I never saw anywhere in the article where Kinsley suggested Bush was lying. The reason probably has to do with the fact that it wasn't a lie, just a misleading characterization.
This kind of partisan back and forth is not "important" to being a good civic-minded person, as Slagman suggests while trying to paint this trite with the brush of importance. It is NOT worthy of an FPP, and if this is what passes for good Metafilter fodder, than I fully expect to see a post about "Kerry lied about foreign leaders." Don't bullshit everyone here and pretend like there aren't a litany of articles out there which make that point. But those articles aren't worthy of a FPP either. (I suspect you all would find the article less worthy if it was something like this, this or this---none of which are worthy FPP's).
Feel free to defend this shit all you want. It was a crap post and, if such things become the standard here for the next eight months, expect to see continual bitching from those of us who feel this crap doesn't belong here.
posted by Seth at 9:15 AM on March 24, 2004
This is an article talking about a campaign claim, which, though technically true, is clearly misleading. But what is the title of the post? Bush lies about taxes. I never saw anywhere in the article where Kinsley suggested Bush was lying. The reason probably has to do with the fact that it wasn't a lie, just a misleading characterization.
This kind of partisan back and forth is not "important" to being a good civic-minded person, as Slagman suggests while trying to paint this trite with the brush of importance. It is NOT worthy of an FPP, and if this is what passes for good Metafilter fodder, than I fully expect to see a post about "Kerry lied about foreign leaders." Don't bullshit everyone here and pretend like there aren't a litany of articles out there which make that point. But those articles aren't worthy of a FPP either. (I suspect you all would find the article less worthy if it was something like this, this or this---none of which are worthy FPP's).
Feel free to defend this shit all you want. It was a crap post and, if such things become the standard here for the next eight months, expect to see continual bitching from those of us who feel this crap doesn't belong here.
posted by Seth at 9:15 AM on March 24, 2004
Bush lies openly, all the time and yet there are still GOP head in the sanders who refuse to accept the basic facts, see this thread for a little illumination of the obtuseness of the right (oh yeah, and its a really skewed and crappy little piece of propaganda too).
And Seth, we'll expect to see continual bitching from any GOP knobby who doesn't like seeing the spotlight of truth being shined on little Georgy Porgy. Whine away.
posted by fenriq at 9:29 AM on March 24, 2004
And Seth, we'll expect to see continual bitching from any GOP knobby who doesn't like seeing the spotlight of truth being shined on little Georgy Porgy. Whine away.
posted by fenriq at 9:29 AM on March 24, 2004
a campaign claim, which, though technically true, is clearly misleading
Hmmm, that's about the best spin for a big fat lie I've ever heard.
it wasn't a lie, just a misleading characterization
Whoops too late, it gets better! He wasn't lying he was just telling a fib...
I never saw anywhere in the article where Kinsley suggested Bush was lying
Ok how bout this bit:
But this isn't about taxes; it's about honesty. Honesty means more than factual accuracy, it means avoiding disingenuousness: not talking crap when you know it's crap.
Or this part which is really the eye opener of the whole lot:
The documentation on the GOP Web site about Kerry's supposed 350 votes to increase taxes actually lists only 67 votes "for higher taxes." Most of these are votes against a tax cut, not in favor of a tax increase. The 67 include nine votes listed twice, three listed three times, and two listed four times. The logic seems to be that if a bill contains more than one item (as almost all bills do), it counts as separate votes for or against each item. The Bush list also includes several series of sequentially numbered votes, which are procedural twists on the same bill. And there are votes on the identical issue in different years. The only actual tax increase on Bush's list (counted twice, but hey … ) is Kerry's support for Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan. That's the one that raised rates in the top bracket and led to a decade of such fabulous prosperity that even its most affluent victims ended up better off.
posted by aaronscool at 9:40 AM on March 24, 2004
Hmmm, that's about the best spin for a big fat lie I've ever heard.
it wasn't a lie, just a misleading characterization
Whoops too late, it gets better! He wasn't lying he was just telling a fib...
I never saw anywhere in the article where Kinsley suggested Bush was lying
Ok how bout this bit:
But this isn't about taxes; it's about honesty. Honesty means more than factual accuracy, it means avoiding disingenuousness: not talking crap when you know it's crap.
Or this part which is really the eye opener of the whole lot:
The documentation on the GOP Web site about Kerry's supposed 350 votes to increase taxes actually lists only 67 votes "for higher taxes." Most of these are votes against a tax cut, not in favor of a tax increase. The 67 include nine votes listed twice, three listed three times, and two listed four times. The logic seems to be that if a bill contains more than one item (as almost all bills do), it counts as separate votes for or against each item. The Bush list also includes several series of sequentially numbered votes, which are procedural twists on the same bill. And there are votes on the identical issue in different years. The only actual tax increase on Bush's list (counted twice, but hey … ) is Kerry's support for Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan. That's the one that raised rates in the top bracket and led to a decade of such fabulous prosperity that even its most affluent victims ended up better off.
posted by aaronscool at 9:40 AM on March 24, 2004
Nice work, aaronscool.
But even with reality slapping them in the face, they will still find some way to refute the basic fact that Bush lies all the time.
posted by fenriq at 10:16 AM on March 24, 2004
But even with reality slapping them in the face, they will still find some way to refute the basic fact that Bush lies all the time.
posted by fenriq at 10:16 AM on March 24, 2004
Kinsley demonstrates without a doubt that it was dishonest crap. Now, perhaps somebody lied to Bush, or counted wrong, or stretched the truth a bit, and he just repeated the lie. That sounds familiar. Why are people always lying to Bush? Why does he repeat the lie? You know, it's one thing for these bozos to photoshop Jane Fonda into pictures with Kerry. Those bozos may vote for Bush, but he can't be held responsible for them. And it's one thing if stupid lefties go around comparing Bush to Hitler or put on their tinfoil hats and claim that Bush knew 9/11 was coming and let it happen. Kerry hasn't made those claims, and he can't be held liable for a few yahoos and liars either. But it's a different matter when the president of the United States repeats detailed, demonstrably false information about his opponent. Which is what we have here. Now, the foreign leader thing, I'm already on record in another thread -- front page post, indeed -- saying Kerry was talking out of his ass. And the fact that the Boston Globe reporter heard a word wrong does not change the substance of what Kerry was saying. But his real gaffe there -- to take another tip from Kinsley, who came up with this years ago -- the worst gaffe is not when a politician lies, it's when he tells the truth. There is no doubt that much of the world's leaders would rather see Kerry in the White House. I don't think that matters; we hold our own elections.
Has Kerry physically met with any of them and been told this lately? More likely he's heard about it through back channels or simply read it in the paper. In the heat of the campaign, he misspoke. Then he tried to defend himself when it was jumped on, and instead of just saying, I was tired, whatever, he made it worse. Even though what he said was essentially true, and documented. It's still a small failure of character, and the GOP was right to call him on it.
But it a different order of magnitude to do what Bush did, to deliberately go out and spreading detailed, specific lies, bogus statistics, in an attempt to smear one's opponent. These are not "technically true" claims, as the column makes clear and as aaronscool notes so succinctly above. These are lies.
Yeah, Kerry and the Democrats beat up Bush all spring. But I don't think they lied about his record. They simply disagreed with it. They found reasons to dispute it and question it.
When a candidate can only resort to lies and falsehoods, that is a sign of weakness. If I were a Republican who wanted to see this president re-elected, I'd be concerned. There is blood in the water, and a stink of desperation in the air.
posted by Slagman at 10:22 AM on March 24, 2004
Has Kerry physically met with any of them and been told this lately? More likely he's heard about it through back channels or simply read it in the paper. In the heat of the campaign, he misspoke. Then he tried to defend himself when it was jumped on, and instead of just saying, I was tired, whatever, he made it worse. Even though what he said was essentially true, and documented. It's still a small failure of character, and the GOP was right to call him on it.
But it a different order of magnitude to do what Bush did, to deliberately go out and spreading detailed, specific lies, bogus statistics, in an attempt to smear one's opponent. These are not "technically true" claims, as the column makes clear and as aaronscool notes so succinctly above. These are lies.
Yeah, Kerry and the Democrats beat up Bush all spring. But I don't think they lied about his record. They simply disagreed with it. They found reasons to dispute it and question it.
When a candidate can only resort to lies and falsehoods, that is a sign of weakness. If I were a Republican who wanted to see this president re-elected, I'd be concerned. There is blood in the water, and a stink of desperation in the air.
posted by Slagman at 10:22 AM on March 24, 2004
Give me a break slagman.
How do you expect to maintain integrity by saying "Bush's crap = lying done by an evil man and Kerry's crap = just being tired and making mistakes?" Either they are both liars or they both mischaracterize the truth and allow people to make incorrect inferences. But you are being willfully disingenuous if you think you can discern a moral difference between their misstatements.
posted by Seth at 11:29 AM on March 24, 2004
How do you expect to maintain integrity by saying "Bush's crap = lying done by an evil man and Kerry's crap = just being tired and making mistakes?" Either they are both liars or they both mischaracterize the truth and allow people to make incorrect inferences. But you are being willfully disingenuous if you think you can discern a moral difference between their misstatements.
posted by Seth at 11:29 AM on March 24, 2004
Feel free to defend this shit all you want. It was a crap post and, if such things become the standard here for the next eight months, expect to see continual bitching from those of us who feel this crap doesn't belong here.
Seth, might I suggest that you simply avoid the "Bushfilter" threads rather than whining about them?
I humbly suggest that perhaps your "Metafilter should be what Seth wants Metafilter to be" posts annoy far more people than the screechy political rhetoric that you are complaining about. The upcoming election, however distasteful you may find it, has a tremendous impact on the lives of a lot of readers/posters; your opinion about Metafilter, on the other hand, may be of slightly lesser import to the group.
posted by monkey.pie.baker at 11:36 AM on March 24, 2004
Seth, might I suggest that you simply avoid the "Bushfilter" threads rather than whining about them?
I humbly suggest that perhaps your "Metafilter should be what Seth wants Metafilter to be" posts annoy far more people than the screechy political rhetoric that you are complaining about. The upcoming election, however distasteful you may find it, has a tremendous impact on the lives of a lot of readers/posters; your opinion about Metafilter, on the other hand, may be of slightly lesser import to the group.
posted by monkey.pie.baker at 11:36 AM on March 24, 2004
Seth, might I suggest that you simply avoid the "Bushfilter" threads
First, its hard to skip them when they are increasingly making up the majority of the posts.
Second, why don't you skip my posts if you don't care from them? If that is the new solipsistic Metafilter standard ("things should be posted because I am interested in them and I don't care about the point of MeFi"), then why does that not also apply to my right to bitch about other's posts? If it is open season to talk about whatever you think is important, shouldn't you grant me that right as well?
posted by Seth at 11:44 AM on March 24, 2004
First, its hard to skip them when they are increasingly making up the majority of the posts.
Second, why don't you skip my posts if you don't care from them? If that is the new solipsistic Metafilter standard ("things should be posted because I am interested in them and I don't care about the point of MeFi"), then why does that not also apply to my right to bitch about other's posts? If it is open season to talk about whatever you think is important, shouldn't you grant me that right as well?
posted by Seth at 11:44 AM on March 24, 2004
Either they are both liars or they both mischaracterize the truth and allow people to make incorrect inferences
I have no doubt that any political candidate will distort truth or in the very least try to persuade people to hold an inaccurate image of themselves during an election.
I fear that this exact attitude however will be the end result of a very negative campaign this year. They are all liars and crooks...
But the real question for any intelligent person is this...To what degree are the two sides lying? In my view already Bush has lost nearly all the credibility I gave him. His war on Iraq seems to become almost on a daily basis less about our national security and more about his personal axe to grind against Saddam. I'm sorry but the "misrepresentations of the truth" (aka lies) about why our country should break all precedent and start a preemptive war are the most serious that an elected official can make.
I'm sorry but until Kerry or anyone else for that matter starts to tell some whoppers on this scale I'm not going to believe your "They are both liars" meme...
posted by aaronscool at 11:51 AM on March 24, 2004
I have no doubt that any political candidate will distort truth or in the very least try to persuade people to hold an inaccurate image of themselves during an election.
I fear that this exact attitude however will be the end result of a very negative campaign this year. They are all liars and crooks...
But the real question for any intelligent person is this...To what degree are the two sides lying? In my view already Bush has lost nearly all the credibility I gave him. His war on Iraq seems to become almost on a daily basis less about our national security and more about his personal axe to grind against Saddam. I'm sorry but the "misrepresentations of the truth" (aka lies) about why our country should break all precedent and start a preemptive war are the most serious that an elected official can make.
I'm sorry but until Kerry or anyone else for that matter starts to tell some whoppers on this scale I'm not going to believe your "They are both liars" meme...
posted by aaronscool at 11:51 AM on March 24, 2004
aaronscool,
I would agree with your assessment if this article was a discussion about Bush making up information about WMD to start a war. Then perhaps your argument has merit. But this op/ed article that was turned into a single-source FPP was about a statement made on the campaign trail that Kerry voted for higher taxes 350 times. The sentence could be true in one sense: if a vote is between lower and higher taxes and someone picks the higher, than they could arguably be said to have voted for higher taxes. It is of course misleading as hell and worthy of pointing that out. But it is ridiculous to suggest that this is some serious lie (when it is arguably factually correct) which is somehow different than the distortions put out there by every politician.
In other words, this one instance is commonplace and will occur several hundred times between now and election day by both candidates (no matter how hard slagman tries to suggest that only the evil other side does this). Since it is so common and un-important, why the hell would anyone make it a FPP? This is a shit FPP, and if you defend it, you should be prepared to accept a version of MeFi that consists of nothing more than a daily posting of talking points from both side. Color me reactionary for not wanting that shit here.
posted by Seth at 12:01 PM on March 24, 2004
I would agree with your assessment if this article was a discussion about Bush making up information about WMD to start a war. Then perhaps your argument has merit. But this op/ed article that was turned into a single-source FPP was about a statement made on the campaign trail that Kerry voted for higher taxes 350 times. The sentence could be true in one sense: if a vote is between lower and higher taxes and someone picks the higher, than they could arguably be said to have voted for higher taxes. It is of course misleading as hell and worthy of pointing that out. But it is ridiculous to suggest that this is some serious lie (when it is arguably factually correct) which is somehow different than the distortions put out there by every politician.
In other words, this one instance is commonplace and will occur several hundred times between now and election day by both candidates (no matter how hard slagman tries to suggest that only the evil other side does this). Since it is so common and un-important, why the hell would anyone make it a FPP? This is a shit FPP, and if you defend it, you should be prepared to accept a version of MeFi that consists of nothing more than a daily posting of talking points from both side. Color me reactionary for not wanting that shit here.
posted by Seth at 12:01 PM on March 24, 2004
For what's it worth: I thought this FPP was actually better than slagman's. At least that one involved some creativity and was something that one couldn't find elsewhere on the net. Slagman's is just a single-source op/ed article that could easily be found and is nothing more than partisan navel-gazing.
They are both shit, and I don't see much difference in community value between the two. But if I had to choose, I think the one that got the guy banned was superior to this crap.
posted by Seth at 12:06 PM on March 24, 2004
They are both shit, and I don't see much difference in community value between the two. But if I had to choose, I think the one that got the guy banned was superior to this crap.
posted by Seth at 12:06 PM on March 24, 2004
I mean this as a serious question, not a snark: Have any U.S. Presidents (since the Founding Fathers, anyway) ever been forthright about taxes? My knowledge of political history is somewhat limited, but I can't think of a particular president who has really told it like it is regarding taxation.
posted by oissubke at 12:13 PM on March 24, 2004
posted by oissubke at 12:13 PM on March 24, 2004
Yeah, Kerry and the Democrats beat up Bush all spring. But I don't think they lied about his record. They simply disagreed with it.
Indeed, well said, Slagman.
I am well aware that most politicians lie. In this particular case, though, the truth about Bush is bad enough that, for the most part, they don't need to.
posted by jpoulos at 12:37 PM on March 24, 2004
Indeed, well said, Slagman.
I am well aware that most politicians lie. In this particular case, though, the truth about Bush is bad enough that, for the most part, they don't need to.
posted by jpoulos at 12:37 PM on March 24, 2004
Seth, might I suggest that you simply avoid the "Bushfilter" threads
The BushFilter threads are the main reason Seth posts here. Without them, he'd have nothing to contribute at all.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:54 PM on March 24, 2004
The BushFilter threads are the main reason Seth posts here. Without them, he'd have nothing to contribute at all.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:54 PM on March 24, 2004
Interestingly, one can see the entire silly, Republican defense of Bush's sorry record distilled right here in this thread. It's either:
a) why, all people tell lies, therefore we shouldn't criticize Our Hero Bush for lying about reasons for going to war, about taxes, about the environment, about his education plan, about Medicare, about his military service, etc etc.
b) we can't refute criticisms of Bush, so we'll attempt to shut down the criticism.
SethFilter:
Seth, when Bush is criticized in FPP: "Single source, op-edish piece from major news source baaaaaaad."
Seth, when Dems criticized in FPP: "Single source, op-edish piece from major news source ok."
Hypocrisy never fails to amuse.
'Course, Seth's own lengthy front page posting experience should give him some real street cred on the subject.
Give it a rest, Seth. Simply skip the posts that you dislike. Your continual attempts to disrupt threads which offend your own partisan political views is pretty low.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:06 PM on March 24, 2004
a) why, all people tell lies, therefore we shouldn't criticize Our Hero Bush for lying about reasons for going to war, about taxes, about the environment, about his education plan, about Medicare, about his military service, etc etc.
b) we can't refute criticisms of Bush, so we'll attempt to shut down the criticism.
SethFilter:
Seth, when Bush is criticized in FPP: "Single source, op-edish piece from major news source baaaaaaad."
Seth, when Dems criticized in FPP: "Single source, op-edish piece from major news source ok."
Hypocrisy never fails to amuse.
'Course, Seth's own lengthy front page posting experience should give him some real street cred on the subject.
Give it a rest, Seth. Simply skip the posts that you dislike. Your continual attempts to disrupt threads which offend your own partisan political views is pretty low.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:06 PM on March 24, 2004
...and if you defend it, you should be prepared to accept a version of MeFi that consists of nothing more than a daily posting of talking points from both side. Color me reactionary for not wanting that shit here.
I would love to see truth and honesty presented here on a daily basis. It certainly does not seem to be happening in the news or from so called journalists who seem to only print talking points on a daily basis without regard to their veracity. Call me old fashioned but I seemed to remember a time when a reporters job was not only to print what someone says but also whether or not what they said was verifiably true. It seems in today's media that this second part is pretty much nonexistent.
I would call you reactionary for not wanting to see honest and truthful discussion here...
posted by aaronscool at 1:48 PM on March 24, 2004
I would love to see truth and honesty presented here on a daily basis. It certainly does not seem to be happening in the news or from so called journalists who seem to only print talking points on a daily basis without regard to their veracity. Call me old fashioned but I seemed to remember a time when a reporters job was not only to print what someone says but also whether or not what they said was verifiably true. It seems in today's media that this second part is pretty much nonexistent.
I would call you reactionary for not wanting to see honest and truthful discussion here...
posted by aaronscool at 1:48 PM on March 24, 2004
Aaronscool, you're old fashioned. And right.
The media today is far too intertwined with Big Business and Politics and has to continue to feed the Culture of Fear or we might realize that not every black guy is going to mug us and rape our women, not every Hispanic guy drives an El Camino and says "Holmes" alot, that not every white guy isn't a gun toting Aryan loving hate monger, that the world isn't completely and utterly possessed of death, fear and violence.
Big Media sucks just along with Big Business and Big Politics. I don't trust any of them.
posted by fenriq at 1:53 PM on March 24, 2004
The media today is far too intertwined with Big Business and Politics and has to continue to feed the Culture of Fear or we might realize that not every black guy is going to mug us and rape our women, not every Hispanic guy drives an El Camino and says "Holmes" alot, that not every white guy isn't a gun toting Aryan loving hate monger, that the world isn't completely and utterly possessed of death, fear and violence.
Big Media sucks just along with Big Business and Big Politics. I don't trust any of them.
posted by fenriq at 1:53 PM on March 24, 2004
Second, why don't you skip my posts if you don't care from them?
I learned this trick a while ago. Seth is a compulsive whiner and he doesn't even have the capacity to make it interesting to read.
posted by john at 3:21 PM on March 24, 2004
I learned this trick a while ago. Seth is a compulsive whiner and he doesn't even have the capacity to make it interesting to read.
posted by john at 3:21 PM on March 24, 2004
Who is the Seth you speak of? Never heard of him.
posted by monkey.pie.baker at 3:47 PM on March 24, 2004
posted by monkey.pie.baker at 3:47 PM on March 24, 2004
- why don't you skip my posts if you don't care from them?
When trolls offer anti-troll techniques, good-faith posters should heed them... Seriously. Engage when arguments are presented only. Not whinging.
posted by dash_slot- at 8:05 PM on March 24, 2004
When trolls offer anti-troll techniques, good-faith posters should heed them... Seriously. Engage when arguments are presented only. Not whinging.
posted by dash_slot- at 8:05 PM on March 24, 2004
fenriq, 'sfunny, I was just watching Natural Born Killers (at a bar, no less!), and I think I said something very close to what you said.
posted by notsnot at 10:34 PM on March 24, 2004
posted by notsnot at 10:34 PM on March 24, 2004
dash-slot, you had me all the way up to whinging and then I couldn't stop laughing. Sorry.
notsnot, its starting to become the prevailing cynicism. Not that I think its a bad thing, mistrust of monstrous and dollar driven organizations is almost never a bad thing.
posted by fenriq at 8:04 AM on March 25, 2004
notsnot, its starting to become the prevailing cynicism. Not that I think its a bad thing, mistrust of monstrous and dollar driven organizations is almost never a bad thing.
posted by fenriq at 8:04 AM on March 25, 2004
« Older The Outsourcing Bogeyman | I'm Mad As Hell Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Bears shit in the woods
The Earth rotates around the Sun
posted by Shane at 5:42 AM on March 24, 2004