Is this for real?

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Saturday, July 23, 2005 19:40
VIEWED: 4249
PAGE 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SERGEANTX

Monday, July 18, 2005 9:47 PM

I found this over at:

http://rawstory.com

Does anyone know if it's for real? I tend to think it is, but no way of knowing. If it is, it's kind of amazing how the press directly regurgitates this stuff. Anyway, I thought I'd post it here and same the neo-con apologists a little typing.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:09 AM

Looks legit. What was the reason to post it here though?

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIMONWHO

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:37 AM

Looks like a standard rebuff, nothing particularly scandalous or even surprising in modern politics.

Apparently Bush's latest position is that anyone in his government convicted of treason will be given a very stern talking to (providing their name isn't an anagram of Overlark)

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:04 PM

Right. I wasn't implying anything scandalous. I was just surprised how closely the press, and most of the Bush apologists I talk to, regurgitate this stuff. Pretty much verbatim. I'd heard about this 'talking point' business, but I had no idea it was this regimented.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Right. I wasn't implying anything scandalous. I was just surprised how closely the press, and most of the Bush apologists I talk to, regurgitate this stuff. Pretty much verbatim. I'd heard about this 'talking point' business, but I had no idea it was this regimented.

Someone produces a well thought out counter argument to the Liberal position completely supported with documentation and quotes and you dismiss it as “regimented” and regurgitated. Would you believe it better if it were unregimented and confused? Basically, you posted this here in the hopes that some other anti-bushite would come along and confirm your preconceptions and spare you form the agonizing horror of the possibility that the other side of the argument might be plausible.

I’m pretty sure this is real, and I’m pretty sure most of it is true, as it appears to be solidly backed up with citations. Of course I wouldn’t know for sure unless I followed those quotes, but why would the GOP release something that could be that easily dispelled? (Although many of the quotes I know are true, because I’ve read them before.) As for whether the talking points themselves are true, that’s debatable. For certain they are at least as true as anything you’ll hear from the Democrats or the Liberal on this board, as of the publishing of this document, which doesn't say much.

And what exactly does it say to you that this document is dated 12 JUL 05? In other words anyone who might have been, as you claim, “regurgitate[ing ] this stuff . . .[ p]retty much verbatim,” could only have been doing it for about a week.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Basically, you posted this here in the hopes that some other anti-bushite would come along and confirm your preconceptions and spare you form the agonizing horror of the possibility that the other side of the argument might be plausible.

Uh... no actually I posted it because I was surprised to find out the whole 'talking points' thing was this well organized. It explains a lot.

Quote:
And what exactly does it say to you that this document is dated 12 JUL 05? In other words anyone who might have been, as you claim, “regurgitate[ing ] this stuff . . .[ p]retty much verbatim,” could only have been doing it for about a week.

Well, it times out about right. I've been hearing echoes of this document for about a week now. All it says to me is that the Bush apologists don't mind being told what to think. I don't know if the democrats stoop to the same sort of groupthink tactics. They probably have some version of it. Weak.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 3:12 PM

It might be fun to follow up with a discussion of the concept of 'talking points' in general, apart from party affiliation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_point

Quote:
Talking points are small arguments or phrases that political strategists issue to representatives or supporters of a party or administration to be used repeatedly in speeches, talk show appearances and debates. The strategy is to create a meme and make the idea a common assumption by means of sheer repetition. Talking points are often gross simplifications of issues, and become name calling if used too often. The most effective talking points consist of one or two words, e.g. "flip-flopper", "job loser", and "ACLU member".

Talking points should not be confused with political slogans, which are displayed and said freely and brazenly. A talking point is more often snuck into speeches and debate to seem if it should naturally be there, thus suggesting it is simple, common knowledge.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

BARNSTORMER

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 3:38 PM

Which statement(s) in the "Talking Points" do you know to be untrue?

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Which statement(s) in the "Talking Points" do you know to be untrue?

Lots of them actually, but that's not the point. I'm more interested in the overall strategy of 'Talking Points' and how they're used to warp political discourse (by both sides).

It seems to me, that the assumption of this strategy is that it's more important to get something repeated over and over again in the media than it is for that something to be logically compelling or even factual. In this kind of public 'debate', if you can call it that, points are chosen that are difficult to disprove (and usually just as difficult to prove), vague and evocative. The emotional kick of a phrase is far more important than it's relevance or truth.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

BARNSTORMER

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 6:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Which statement(s) in the "Talking Points" do you know to be untrue?

Lots of them actually, but that's not the point. I'm more interested in the overall strategy of 'Talking Points' and how they're used to warp political discourse (by both sides).

It seems to me, that the assumption of this strategy is that it's more important to get something repeated over and over again in the media than it is for that something to be logically compelling or even factual. In this kind of public 'debate', if you can call it that, points are chosen that are difficult to disprove (and usually just as difficult to prove), vague and evocative. The emotional kick of a phrase is far more important than it's relevance or truth.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

I'm not sure that any of them are false. I'm waiting for the special prosecutor to come out with his findings before I make any decisions, just like any rational American should do.

From what I have read, the findings of the Select Committee on Intelligence report into this matter backs up Rove's claims. I believe that this committee is equally Republican and Democrat. Given that, the findings were predominatly unanomous.

That's just what I read though. Quite honestly I don't know if that info was leaked or if the report has been actually released to the public, or is just plain false or misrepresented. So it's better to wait for all the info to offically come out, then start tearing it apart if you wish.

As far as "Talking Points" are concerned, I see no problem with them as long as they are factual. A set of talking points is just a set of notes that anyone would use while public speaking.

Is that so wrong?

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE