Is Bin Laden a tool for the US election?
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 19:27
VIEWED: 12002
PAGE 7 of 8
Geezer- Whyizzit that Cheney can say something as egregious as 'Vote for us or die' (paraphrased) and ConnerFlynn can say something as extreme as "Well World War three is here" with nary a lifted eyebrow, but all replies have to be somehow moderate, neutral, dispassionate? Seems there is a pervasie double standard at work here and possibly some unconscious bias, no?
Araglas- Probably one of the most interesting aspects of the show (at least for me) is that it is deeply political. Politics drives the plot- from the destruction of Earth-that-was to the centralization of the Alliance and the resistance of the outlying worlds. I think because of that, the show attracted a number of politically impassioned viewers, especially libertarians and liberals (or farther left). I personally think Joss wanted it that way- that's why the focus is not on whiz-bang technology or aliens, but on the very human problems of justice, freedom, security, individualism, and conformity. That being said, my guess would be that Joss believes that the BEST way to engage people is through a good story, not through polemics, and if this thread were to turn people off to the story then he'd vote to shut it down.
It's a great disappointment when I find a science fiction writer who dreams up an extreme physical milieu (Helliconia, the surface of a neutron star) and then creates a society that is a stupid white man's view of African tribalism... no real imgination, and certainly no insight! I'm not sure what you like about FF, but CJ Cherryh wrote an along similar lines in her Downbelow Station series- oddly, she even used the term Alliance, but in her stories that term describes the breakaway worlds, not the central core.
Anyway, if you will be patient I think the threads will die down a bit. This is the anniversary of 9-11, and also a very anxious time for a lot of people- those who believe that WW3 is here and only GWB can save us, and those who think that WW3 is coming BECAUSE of GWB. Pretty heavy-duty stuff. Hopefully, we will all remember to behave like grownups and keep the conversation civil.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- Whyizzit that Cheney can say something as egregious as 'Vote for us or die' (paraphrased) and ConnerFlynn can say something as extreme as "Well World War three is here" with nary a lifted eyebrow, but all replies have to be somehow moderate, neutral, dispassionate? Seems there is a pervasive double standard at work here and possibly some unconscious bias, no?
Cheney's statement is hardly new news, or a new tactic. Compare to Lyndon Johnson's 1964 "Daisy" commercial. (requires Realplayer) http://www.tvparty.com/trailers/johnsonpres.ram
Found here: http://www.tvparty.com/comjing.html
Based on the context, I thought that ConnerFlynn had tongue firmly in cheek with the WWIII statement.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, and Lyndon Johnson got the response that he deserved... massive and sometimes violent antiwar protests and eventually getting booted out of office! Johnson was called all sort of nasty but perfectly applicable names.
As far as ConnorFlynn is concerned- no, I don't think his tongue is firmly in cheek. Based on the tenor and content of his other posts I think he's dead serious.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, and Lyndon Johnson got the response that he deserved... massive and sometimes violent antiwar protests and eventually getting booted out of office! Johnson was called all sort of nasty but perfectly applicable names.
Remember that the reason for Johnson's commercial was that his opponent, Barry Goldwater, was actually talking about using nukes in SE Asia. And Johnson did win that election. Johnson was also the president who pushed through some of the most far reaching civil rights legislation and court rulings of the 20th century. If he hadn't inherited Vietnam from JFK, he might be considered one of the greatest presidents.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, I know. The difference between Johnson and Bush is that Johnson has SOME redeeming qualities, and Bush has none, as far as I can tell.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To make this more explicit, if Johnson was dumped out of ofiice because of Vietnam despite all of the positive things he'd done, what about Bush?
On the negative side, he lied us into Iraq (which despite Cheney's pesistance had nothing to do with terrorism in the USA) and was responsible for 1000 American deaths and created a record deficit out of a surplus, and lost us millions of jobs.
On the positive side he...uh...gave lots of money to the ultra wealthy and uh... uh... created an giveaway to the pharmas with his drug plan and.... uh... promised to take away money from failing schools.
I mean, I really can't think of a single thing that he's done that has had a positive impact on the average person- can you???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To make this more explicit, if Johnson was dumped out of ofiice because of Vietnam despite all of the positive things he'd done, what about Bush?
Johnson chose not to run in '68. He was never voted out. And you actually preferred Nixon?
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
On the negative side, he lied us into Iraq (which despite Cheney's pesistance had nothing to do with terrorism in the USA) and was responsible for 1000 American deaths and created a record deficit out of a surplus, and lost us millions of jobs.
On the positive side he...uh...gave lots of money to the ultra wealthy and uh... uh... created an giveaway to the pharmas with his drug plan and.... uh... promised to take away money from failing schools.
I mean, I really can't think of a single thing that he's done that has had a positive impact on the average person- can you???
I'm certainly not happy with his pandering to the Religious Right, for example, but I have no problem with going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. I'm holding off on the Iraq situation until I see how (or if) the elections go in January.
Here are a couple of seemingly positive things I've found :
"Bush Tax Cuts Erased Income Tax Burden for 7.8 Million Families"
http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/7million.html
"New CBO Study Confirms Wealthiest Americans Bear Income Tax Burden"
http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/cbostudy2.html
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I may be a big idiot here, but that whole "wealthiest Americans bare highest tax burden thing" sure sounds like a lovely euphemistic spin on the reality that the poorest Americans are getting a lot poorer. Perhaps the statistic merely reflects that there are many more single parent homes with multiple dependants who make less than $20,000 a year--hence, a "dramatic increase" in "zero-filers." If an extra $500 per child is having such a dramatic affect on the stats, doesn't that suggest that there are an awful lot of poeple who are just really, really poor?
And most people who are concerned about the rich getting richer are not conserned with the "top 60%" of Americans getting rich (I bet most Americans would be pretty happy about that, right? 60%=most), they're conserned about the top 15, 10 or 1%. I'm not a big math genius, but I don't think that website had anything specific to say about the top 15%. Sounds an awful lot like the top 15% are still winning big, the extremely poor are getting so poor that a few hundred dollars changes their lives and the middle class are getting stuck with the bill again, so what's the big change?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh yeah, whoopee, the tax burden is reduced. Manwhile, more people are poorer than ever before, more people don't have health insurance and (if Bush had his way) fewer people would get paid overtime. He gives with one hand, he takes with two.
Without looking at the totality "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" (NO) and jsut looking at the so-called tax cut, as a stimulous measure it was a total flop. What it really did was transfer money from the moderatley well-off to the ultra wealthy. What "quintile" numbers DON'T show you is that the ultra-wealthy- those making a million or more- pay no taxes. It gets buried in the top quintile average.
As far as Johnson- no, I didn't prefer Nixon. But Nixon followed Johnson's path of lying to the public and he got what HE deserved.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Signy,
For a guy that hates it when people assume that his lack of sympathy for the left means he's right-wing, Geezer sure likes to throw up these polarizing kinds of "questions."
Quote:
And you actually preferred Nixon?
Hasn't he been reading your posts long enough to know the answer to that already? Yeah, you're a regular Ben Stein! Y'all love you some Nixon! LOL! Guys like the Geez seem to think the rest of us are all so simple minded.
BTW: I don't know if you're up on Ben Stein but I just heard him on Hardball (damn, or was it Larry King?), anyway, he was asked about Watergate and he said that all of us would be a lot better off if the break-in had never been found out, that it would be better for the country if Nixon had gotten away with it. I think Chris Matthews just stared at him. LOL!
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME