There was another interesting conversation on muchedumbre.com the other day. It started when a poster accidentally slipped into the politikal section, a section usually avoided by most because it’s a cesspool of insults,misinformation and retardation (which I say with love in my heart since I am swimming around in that cesspool with the rest of them). Upon realizing his error, he looked around and said..
“Yeah, I don’t understand how to play here yet.”
This was met with the humorous , yet essential, advice of…
You have to throw in the occassional [sic] Fuck Off! and then I think you’ll have it..
Anyone who is part of a community like ours, may find the words crude, but they know the advice is integral. It doesn’t matter how civil a debate starts, when two opposing figures meet, if one is bound by political party doctrine to ‘deny at all cost’, to live the motto of ‘just say Hell No!’ it doesn’t matter if the other figure is is bound by the same codes as Tibetan Monks, there’s going to eventually be a ‘fuck you’ thrown into the debate.
It was this ‘field guide’ that brought about an insightful reply from Chuck, and I put it here because of the debate it produced. It is probably the most childish,ridiculous and asinine debate ever held by adults, but once again.. when the party of ‘Hell NO!” meets anyone saying “uh, yes” intelligence, logic, and reason is soon lost as you will soon see.
Maybe I can explain it a little bit with some other happenings around the U.S. Though they may seem very direct and to the point and not as “left to interpretation”…well…let’s start.
Recently Scott Brown, newly elected Senator from Mass, has said and suggested that MSNBC host Rachael Maddow is going to run against him during reelections. Through sources on his end, he’s said that she’s “secretly” gathering up steam and will file and run. Maddow has stated on her show she is not running, has no intention of it.
End of story right? Nopey.
Scott Brown was asked on a radio show, following Maddow’s statement, what he thought of her statement that she wasn’t going to run. He replied, without ever saying, “well, I guess that changes things, har har”, and instead replied, “mumble mumble….bring it on.” Implying that he still believed she was indeed going to run and that he was ready for her.
Next Maddow, with her own money, took out a front page ad (in the area of interests) newspaper calling Scott Brown a liar and that she was definitely, emphatically, not running. She had/has no desire to run and that this was getting silly and to quit saying or implying she was running and using her name to collect campaign donations from individuals, with a lie.
His reply? He said her front page newspaper statement looked like it came straight from one of the writers at the DNC and that he thought Maddow would make an interesting candidate. Thus never admitting that he (Mr. Brown) was in error and making sure to twice “imply” through his choice of words, that Ms. Maddow was and STILL IS a candidate.
Nine members of a Michigan Militia group were arrested and charged with plotting to kill a law enforcement officer and then many others with homemade bombs, in hopes of starting an uprising against the Government…oh and to battle with the anti-christ.
You would think across the Blogosphere and forums alike, we’d see the individuals involved being denounced…but not so fast mister fancy pants…they’re being defended. Not by seemingly other milita groups or like minded individuals…but rather…by individuals who are making sure to note that anything this current Government/Administration does is to be suspect and dubious.
You’d think something like this would be pretty cut and dry. Wanna kill law enforcement officers, check. Wanna kill many more people with homemade bombs, check. Wanna be prepared and kill the anti-christ, check. What is our governments REAL agenda here, che…what?
What you will find, in your journey here, will be two sides to the same coin, almost constantly at odds. Oft times from political stances. Oft times from personal interpretations…or both.
It’s the only place in the universe where 2+2 is debatable.
Welcome aboard, you poor fucker.
More than just being explanatory of today’s political world and how truth is ignored for rhetoric and whatever can incite the masses against any opposition, one part of that sticks out as so true it’s scary.
It’s the only place in the universe where 2+2 is debatable.
You would think adults all across the political spectrum could agree on that elementary concept, but they don’t. Because one side of the political spectrum has made it their goal for at least 4 years, to oppose anything coming from the current administration, 2+2 does not equal 4 if this administration or anyone speaking in favor of this administration is the one saying it. The Maddow/Brown debate is a perfect instances in a long, long list of other equally amazing 2+2 does not equal 4 examples. The fact that Ms. Maddow has said on her show, said in interviews, taken out a full page add to alert the world of the simple fact that unequivocally and emphatically she is not running against Scott Brown doesn’t matter to the party of “Hell NO!” because to them, 2+2 is not 4 and it is Scott Brown’s 2+2=3 equation that is the fundamental truth here.
The argument that this ‘2+2=4’ statement caused, ended up twisting logic until it no longer resembled its former self. Some where along the way ‘fact’ became, and is now, interchangeable with opinion,rumor and gossip.
Here’s an example
Keith Olbermann is biased and does slant opinions against the Right. But that does not mean he is making the news up and reporting his ‘rumor’ as fact. He may not focus on an issue like when a Democrat is caught having an affair with his mistress but he will spend 1/2 his show telling you about a Republican getting caught having an affair with his chief of staffs wife. Slanted, yes! but it is still based on the fact that the Republican did sleep with his chief of staffs wife. That nugget is truthful and not an opinion to be batted around until it becomes a truth in the eyes of the viewers[insert Obama not of US birth] . Keith Olbermann, no matter how biased he is, is still telling you the truth when he’s telling you the Republican slept with his COS wife.
This goes unnoticed because those who want to de-legitimize everything even remotely ‘Left’, stick to their guns with the idea that since Olbermann is truthful in his bias , then so is Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck who made the opinionated allegation, without a basis in fact, that this President was an white-hating racist, is telling the truth and is delivering a fact because Olbermann reported more on the Republican than he did the Democrat. What’s worse, Beck has spent so much time repeating this concept that it’s believed by 31% of those polled. They can’t differentiate the difference in a “liberal news show’ talking more about a factual Republican scandal is not on the same untruthful level as another show presenting their opinions as facts until they become believed as the almighty truth. It is a ‘tit for tat’ that they just don’t get. Sure the Liberals and Democrats opposed George Bush, but when you look at why it’s not like they were wrong for opposing him. The US just does not torture or we just don’t preemptively invade countries.. These are real,honest,valid and acceptable differences to have. Not liking the amount of time President Obama uses a teleprompter is just as valid of a complaint, saying he is therefore unable to run the country, is not!
And yet, like everything else, that statement is somehow debatable…
So, back to my fundamental question, what is the arguement [sic] to believe 1 biased source but not another?
Fox news,most of the GOP,Sarah Palin and followers,Tea-party members along with the most if not all of the rest of the people trying to de-legitimize the other side of the aisle, have decided that their opinions and allegations are just as reliable as being truthful as actual facts given by an ‘enemy source’ whether that be MSNBC,Jon Stewart,President Obama,any Democrat leader or any left-leaning person out there.
When anyone tries to point this inaccuracy out, either they really can’t understand the concept that opinion is not fact and fact is not fiction if it’s told by liberal, or they just don’t care because their hate knows no bounds. Either way they revert back to the concept of
You deem you are the ultimate say so on who is saying 1+1 = 2. And, incidentally enough, all the people you like get it right, and all the people you don’t like don’t get it right.
You are trying to process all this inside your own bias.
Your main problem, is you refuse to believe the bias of the broadcasters
Only when you understand that can you even begin to answer my question: How can we believe the truth when it comes from a biased source?
In order for me to understand, I need to believe Glenn Becks opinion that Obama is a white-hating racist.. when I accept this as truth, then I can see that fact given by a biased reporter and opinion given by Fox News are the same thing.
2+2 =4 is now debatable and depending on where you ‘lean’ is what your answer is. Keith Olbermann, because he is biased and gives more time to Republican scandals, is not factually correct when he tells you the answer is 4 unless you also recognize that Glenn Beck telling you the answer is 3 is also correct because they are both biased. So either both are to be believed or neither are.
I told you this was going to be childish,ridiculous and asinine.
This argument of ‘slant and bias’ not affecting the actual truth is a fair point though. You can have a conservative explain a factual event and a liberal explain the same event and while the reasoning behind the event may be slanted and bias, that doesn’t change the facts of the event. 2 maybe a sissy-boy who liked to play with dolls growing up to the conservatives or 2 might have been a devoted pet-lover with a deep seeded love for parrots, but when added together 2 +2 is still going to equal 4.
It’s not that I am deeming only those I agree with as being ‘factual’ or that I disbelieve the other broadcasters, say Fox News, because of their bias. It’s just that I deem those reporting actual truths as being better than those reporting opinion as truth and that is the slight, but albeit glaring difference here.
Fox News is in the habit of reporting an opinion in a way that by the end of the day you can barely distinguish where opinion stops and fact starts and thus the opinion they started off with becomes as commonly accepted as the factual concept of gravity. For example, remember the ‘Czars’ Fox News went apoplectic on?
Obama’s Czars Spark Concerns Among Some Lawmakers
Although former U.S. attorney Alan Bersin and the late Russian ruler Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov appear to have nothing in common, thanks to President Obama, they now share a title.
The slant of the headline and first paragraph, makes it seem like the 1st time a head of a department was ever called ‘Czar’ was under President Obama. Then there is the slant of the story itself
Czardom does not sit well with Sen. Robert Byrd. Though slowed by age, the West Virginia Democrat remains vigorous in his defense of the powers ceded to the Congress by the Constitution. He said he believes czars are a slick way of governing without having to answer to Congress.
There is no constitutional requirement that czars undergo those pesky Senate confirmation hearings.
Yes, those ‘pesky’ Senate confirmations.
If you watched Fox News during this “Fox News made up conspiracy” you would have thought Red Dawn was no longer fiction and we had been invaded by Russians, and with good reason! Glenn Beck let us know that President Obama, just a few short months into his 1st year, had 19 Czars and counting, compared to only 4 Czars in all of George Bush’s time. A month later, Greta Van Susteren let us know that number had climbed to 30, she also raised the number of George Bush’s number of Czars from Beck’s 4 to 12. Who wouldn’t look at that and wonder, after being told how Communist President Obama was, what the hell was going on. The problem is, by most counts George Bush has 36 Czars filled by 46 different people. That’s a grand difference than Beck’s 4 and Greta’s 12. But this bad information was propagated day and night throughout the Fox News “Fair and Balanced” 24 hour rotations.
If you had listened to Fox and Friends during the run up to the election, you would have heard how then Senator Obama had tired of being asked whether or not he was Muslim and had said “Enough already. There’s nothing wrong with being a Muslim, but I have been a Christian for two decades now. Enough!”
When in fact, what he said was that he had been a Christian his entire life.
Does anyone remember the ‘indoctrinating our youth’ hoopla made up by Fox News?
Which of course led to Fox’s next big question
“Will You Keep Your Kids Home the Day Obama Speaks to Schools?”
That was answered with a “yes, yes we will”. But why wouldn’t they, here is a former Muslim, who is turning this country communist, all you have to do is look at his ‘Czar’ list to see that… This “Unprecedented’… ‘First time ever’ talk to school children is something all parents should fear.
Except it was not ‘unprecedented’. It was not the first time it’s been done, Republican Presidents have done it before.
What about this symbol?
Fox didn’t let the fact that this symbol was chosen more than 3 years ago interfere with informing you of how Islam was coming for America, while Rachael Maddow spent her time thoroughly de-bunking this myth before it could make it into another Fox-made rumor turned into fact. Unfortunately it made it’s way throughout the blog-sphere anyway, even with the original blogger retracting his accusation .
At 2200 words I realize that I could spend ten times that amount just on examples of this idea that Fox News takes rumor and allegation and reports them like they are fact until they become unquestionable fact, but those who would read it all already agree and those who don’t agree wouldn’t care if I spent 1 million words and 10 times a many examples.
Those of us who do agree don’t just ‘deem worthy’ those who are speaking for our political side, we deem worthy those who speak the truth instead of made up rumors. That is the difference, we chose to believe the ones who tell us 2+2=4, because they’re telling us fact. We chose them over those telling us 2+2=7 because they don’t like the ‘lame stream media’, liberals and this President saying otherwise.
You don’t have to take my opinion that Fox news has a problem with facts. (R) James Coburn echoed the same sentiment the other day. At a town hall meeting he said..
Sen. Coburn: “I want to tell you, I do a lot or reading every say and I”m disturbed that we get things like what this lady said [a women had questioned him on people being jailed for not having healthcare, which he flatly denied and said it made good TV on Fox to say this, but it just wasn’t true] and others have said on other issues that are so disconnected from what I know to the facts. And that comes from somebody who has an agenda that’s other than the best interest of our country. And so please balance and be careful
He implored people to not to be biased by Fox news.
And what we have to have is make sure we have a debate in this country so that you can see what’s going on and make the determination yourself. So, don’t catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody’s no good.
David Frum, he’s a pretty big deal in the land of conservatives, said a few weeks ago,
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead.
Just the other day, Frum said
“Fox, like [Rush] Limbaugh has been pushing the Republicans to the margins, making people angry,…”
The agenda for Fox News is not the agenda of the United States, but the viewers have been lead by Fox news and others like them to believe that it is. Fox News is the business to get ratings which equals money, to do this they must stand out above all the other news programs, to do that they have to have a ‘shtick’ and they do. They ask a question or comment a rumor, they revert back to that ‘rumor’ throughout the day until the opposition is asked about said rumor, and their denial of the rumor is aired, and that’s when the rumor turns into fact.
“I heard the Seth Nobody liked to play with dolls when he was a little boy” a commentator on the early morning says.
“Is that so?” says the co-host? “Well Bob, drop that doll and tell us what the weather’s like outside”
Later in the day, on another gossip labeled “News” show on the same network this rumor pops up again,
“I don’t know where I heard this, but you know Seth Nobody played with barbies as a boy”
to which the co-host replies
“Well that would explain why he dresses so good.”
Before 24 hour news, that might go on for a day or so.. but now, it only takes hours until you will get a “journalist” from the same network asking someone in charge, or even another reporter on his show.. “People are saying Seth played with girls dolls as a child, do you think he should really be in charge of the more manly dolls like GI Joe?”
Now that this ‘rumor’ is gaining interest, because we all like the salacious more than the mundane.. other, more reputable news outlet being to report,
“Today Seth Nobody denied he liked to play with dolls as a child”
and viola.. Seth, who supported single payer insurance, started off his morning as a normal guy with just a different political view; but by the end of the day he became a ratings horse for a money and political power-hungry gossip labeled “News” network. Poor Seth is now a freak who played with dolls. This is planted and replanted throughout the cycle until it spreads through the viewers and becomes a known fact to them.Normal, upstanding liberal political leader Seth is just a queer-bait who cross-dresses at night when he’s home alone. You don’t want to vote with him do you?
You can see this process in action here..
Ignoring all the other examples in this interview, when the interviewer gets to the question about VP Biden’s comment of how the US will be tested under OBama, look at the bias that brings an utter falsehood into the world of facts as we know them today…
“..are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done and that America’s days as the world’s leading power are over?”
Well, no.. no he isn’t. That’s just your biased making things up and unfortunately getting too many people to believe you.
Of course we go back to the other ‘fear’ rumor which has made into a ‘fact’ that too many in this country believe as God’s honest truth.. Socialism
“What do you say to the people who say Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?”
The only people who were saying that was that interviewer, Fox News who wants rating and candidates who want power. It started as a fear technique to scare people out of voting for him, then it was passed around by the gossiping hens on Fox News, then their ‘journalists’ reported that all important “People are asking….” it became not just news, but fact. William Randolph Hearst did this and it worked to make him rich just like it’s making Murdoch,Beck,Palin, Hannity and many others filthy stinking rich. Don’t believe me? Do you know what Rush Limbaugh gets for telling you these things?$400 million dollars!
Nah, he has no motive to make his show more interesting and keep his numbers up.
How about if they tell you themselves it’s all about the money, and controversy means cash.. would that change anyone’s perspective that they aren’t hearing truths, but what will make the person speaking more money?
With a deadpan, Beck insists that he is not political: “I could give a flying crap about the political process.” Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. “We’re an entertainment company,” Beck says. He has managed to monetize virtually everything that comes out of his mouth.
They are an ‘entertainment company’, and yet they’ve been able to convince most of the viewing population that they are the most trusted name in news. How is that even possible? Their goal is new entertainment and ratings.
As I said a few hundred words ago, I could go on and on, I could provide 1000’s of examples.. but those who would read it all already agree and those who don’t agree wouldn’t care if I spent 1 million words and 10 times a many examples, but in my quest.. I found an interesting ‘beginning’. Yes, the seeds were already there.. one only had to follow the 2008 campaign trail to see it, but something about this struck me like an “AHA! Here is where it really started to become true!” Because I think that up until that point, even with those at the town-meetings believing the rhetoric, it was still mainly a rumor. Until this broadcast sealed the rumor as truth forever. I found it on a blog called JOTMAN.COM. On this is site ‘Jotman’ has 3 videos shot the night of President Obama’s election win. One video is actually from Fox news the following morning showing a crowd of people at the gates of the White House, the broadcaster comments that they are probably drunk, her opinion of course, and then she draws your attention to the flag someone in the crowd raises, it is the Russian Communist flag. The Broadcaster is of course curious and wants this watched because ‘what does it mean?”, is it a sign?, do we need to fear this newly elected President or something just as ridiculous.
The second video is reportedly shot from inside the White House that same night, it’s the same crowd cheering at the gates, the man in the video sees the cheering and the flag and he is scared. As he says these are people coming out for Obama and cheering the fact that this country is going to change.. he just can’t believe what he is seeing. There is pushing and shoving, look there is the communist flag again, and torches! they’re all over the place it’s so ominous … it’s chaos!
Until you watch the video from the street.
The third video shows the crowd laughing,cheering,smiling and yes.. Chanting.
For the land of the free….. and the home of the… Braaaaavvveeee!!!
Not to mention USA!USA!USA!USA!USA!
Yes, there is the commie flag.. but instead of asking what the flag meant Fox News decided it meant communism was here and they must fight it every step of the way. Fox news knew that morning, like the mornings after every election there was bound to be some pretty pissed off people and they were going to stir up that emotion and bank it. That story was the perfect one to drop the ‘Hearst’ seed and watch it grow. It was visual proof and with just the right question put to it, maybe another mention of it later, until finally reporting on as a fact in the later broadcasts, President Obama becomes an elected Communist .There was no need for anyone to hear the crowd, the silent view of it with the added speculation would serve quit nicely. Those watching Fox that segment wouldn’t hear the glee and love for their country coming from that crowd, instead they would see a possibly drunken presence cheering the fact that communism has now come to America when she elected an Communist, Marxist, Socialist the night before. Before long Glen Beck would confirm their other fear, the fear that this new president also hated white people.
We’ll never know what the flag meant one way or the other, we have video of the overwhelming happiness and pride in the country though, so to me it reinforces the rules of any political debate and that is …It doesn’t matter how civil a debate starts, when two opposing figures meet no matter if the figures are bound by the same codes as Tibetan Monks there is going to eventually be a ‘fuck you’ thrown into the debate and to me, this was just a big Fuck you along with a cheerful goodbye to the despotic way the country was run for 8 very long years!
Of course this all just my opinion, not a fact and it’s because I know the difference that I deem others who also know the difference to be more worthy of my trust that those who don’t.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Maddow Senate Run ‘Completely Made Up,’ Despite Scott Brown Fundraising Pitch (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
- Scott Brown Uses Rachel Maddow to Increase Campaign Donations (lezgetreal.com)
- Rachel Maddow takes out full page ad to debunk Scott Brown’s fantasies (crooksandliars.com)