Rove is currently a political appointee in the white house, meaning he gets paid by tax dollars. Before that he (well, really his PR firm Karl Rove & Company) got paid exactly the same way this republican PR firm gets paid for doing the exact same kind of work.
No, by my logic a republican PR Firm that does PR for republican campaigns does PR for republican campaigns.
Try reversing it. You start with the conclusion and move to backwards. You should look at the criteria to determine if it is a Republican owned PR firm. Instead you just declare it so.
As for the differences, are you claiming that ol'George S. didn't work for Clinton when he was in the white house? Did he somehow become nonpartisan during that time? I'm sure all of us would love to hear your explanation of how Karl Rove ISN'T partisan right now because he is being paid with U.S. Tax dollars. How can you not be partisan when you are working for the executive branch of the president? I understand (as do you) that some offices tend to have people that stay between administrations, but the roles we are discussing that Rove and Stephanopolis filled obviously do not. Presidents are partisan, and we all know that most executive offices are filled with fellow partisans from the party.
Also you are wrong about Rove's company. It has always been known as a political consulting firm. It is not a public relations firm.
Lastly we have the fact that you still prefer to focus no the perceived messenger since you haven't addressed Michael Moore profiting from keeping secret the torture of Iraqi's.
Prior to his current appointment, Karl Rove served as chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney 2000 Presidential campaign and as president of Karl Rove & Company, an Austin, Texas-based public affairs firm.
Rove's primary claim to fame is direct mail. Karl Rove & Company coordinated and publicized republican campaigns. RMR and Rove & Co do the exact same thing.
'Move America Forward' (please) and 'Citizens United' (?) have started a campaign to ban Fahrenheit 911.
Apparently, according to David Bossie of CU:
This raise several points:
1) It is yet more evidence (like we needed it) of the fundie bi-polar mindset. Anything that criticizes Bush MUST by definition, be partisan. It couldn't be that someone is interested in the truth. Not possible.
Partisan or not, Moore has obviously made this film in an attempt to influence the election. Moore himself is branded as partisan because, well he is. He is a registered Democrat who spent much of the primary season campaigning for Clarke. That happens to be the definition of partisan. Moore isn't declared partisan because he criticizes Bush. He is declared partisan because he is campaigning for Democrats. Moore is obviously not interested in the truth or else he would have released his information about torture before he could make a buck off it. He also would have run people's comments to his questions instead of just their facial expressions. Lastly there have multiple charges across multiple films that Moore has his film crew lie about who they are and for whom they work. Lying to get at the truth doesn't help his case in that regard either.
Quote:
2) Even if this ridiculous argument had the smallest iota of truth or accuracy contained within it's hollow and vacuous carapace, then you'd have to say so bloody what ??????. I mean hello ???? Is that a crime ?
Being partisan isn't a crime at all. However you can use it to inform the viewing public of what they are watching. In the trailer we get to watch Republicans have their words cut out of the movie. We also get to watch long-winded Democrats declare that the reason so many Republicans and Democrats voted for the Patriot Act was because... they didn't read it. We have the speech for example which was given in the context of humor, but is played outside of that context so that the words have a distorted meaning. We also of course have no mention of the Gore speech that was given within that same context as well, etc.
Even the part with the golf swing is doing nothing more than taking advantage of peoople's ignorance regarding the press, their gathering of statements, and going on and off the record.
All the word partisan begins to do, is inform a viewer of some of the tricks Moore will employ to tell his distorted view to the world and present it as truth.
Rove's primary claim to fame is direct mail. Karl Rove & Company coordinated and publicized republican campaigns. RMR and Rove & Co do the exact same thing.
Checking, checking... nope still haven't addressed Michael Moore have you.
I can find you still wandering off about Rove, but what else is new in that regard for you.
Public affairs = political consulting.
As for not knowing what the hell I am talking about. You said Rove works for the White House now instead of being paid to consult for Bush. (He is still paid to consult just by the White House) You brought up the point that he is paid by the White House so you can "clarify" your conclusion from that since you don't like mine. The only conclusion I could see you drawing is that he is no longer paid by the Republican party but is still partisan. If that wasn't what you were trying to claim then clarify it.
But regardless, the point is moot. Address the topic of the thread. Michael Moore. Address the fact that he lets suffering continue by hiding the truth for a buck while claiming to expose the same thing.
Keep backpedalling. Would it really hurt you so much to admit that you were dead wrong?
I love this:
You're a riot.
So sad, you still haven't even addressed the thread. Since you can't be right on Rove, you have to start attacking me next. You are as predictable as the sun rising.
Its kinda funny to watch Trumpt have to admit that he is wrong without admitting that he is wrong . . . just throw lots of words at us and we won't see it . . .
.
A PR firm who's sole purpose it is to sell Republicanism is not like the other groups mentioned (see Rageous's subtle and well worded post) . . . and they lied about their 'grass roots' origins!
Is that basic to the Republican 'values' that they purport to promote: lying like that?
I hope not . .. especially in the service of a back-door attempt at strong-arm censorship.
Lastly we have the fact that you still prefer to focus no the perceived messenger since you haven't addressed Michael Moore profiting from keeping secret the torture of Iraqi's.
I'm sure you'll address it someday though.
Nick
Instead of flaming each other, does anyone care to read and respond to my previous post, the one that says the AP had footage of US soldiers conducting a raid and beating/abusing Iraqi citizens on camera long before Abu Ghraib?
This was footage distributed by the AP that was ignored by all major American news outlets. This is (reportedly) the same footage that is in Fahrenheit 911, and was also aired on Australian television.
So it was not "secret" footage, it was footage shopped out by the AP that no one in the States cared to pick up. It may have been mismarketed, actively suppressed, or simply overlooked. But it was definitely not secret.
There are plenty of reasons to bash Michael Moore. But trying to spin this into a simple case of him hiding evidence of torture? That's utterly ridiculous.
Instead of flaming each other, does anyone care to read and respond to my previous post, the one that says the AP had footage of US soldiers conducting a raid and beating/abusing Iraqi citizens on camera long before Abu Ghraib?
This was footage distributed by the AP that was ignored by all major American news outlets. This is (reportedly) the same footage that is in Fahrenheit 911, and was also aired on Australian television.
So it was not "secret" footage, it was footage shopped out by the AP that no one in the States cared to pick up. It may have been mismarketed, actively suppressed, or simply overlooked. But it was definitely not secret.
There are plenty of reasons to bash Michael Moore. But trying to spin this into a simple case of him hiding evidence of torture? That's utterly ridiculous.
Gizz,
I don't think this is the same footage. I am willing to admit that I don't have any other basis for this than Moore's own explanation of the matter. I'm sure if the footage were an AP feed, he would have mentioned how others could have shown it as well.
So let me get this straight. Michael Moore puts out a film against Bush. Conservatives make a website against Moore. Shocking, all.
No.
Conservatives organize a campaign to intimidate theater owners into not showing Michael Moore's film.
In case you haven't been paying attention, there has been a rising tide of threats and violence against "leftist terrorist lovers that hate America". These "make your displeasure known" deals are rapidly becoming code for "by any means necessary".
The idea that "hateful partisanship" is shared in equal measure by America's left and right is a lie. The frequent use of "hate" on these boards to describe critique of Bush policies is a vicious lie.
At heart, the American right is becoming a entity of implicit violence and intimidation, increasingly crossing into explicit violence and extra-legality.
Read Ann Coulter. Read Rush Limbaugh. Read Michael Savage. Read Bill O'Reilly. These are the voices that speak for the "patriots". They speak of Democrats and liberalism as traitorous and deserving of violent repression. They equate criticism of Bush with support of terrorism and hatred of America. They are very serious.
What is to be done with people who "support terrorists?" Who could blame a patriot if they took matters into their own hands? The very survival of America is at stake.
So if an organized rightist campaign to encourage theater owners to think twice about booking "Fahrenheit 911" seems to have a little extra heat behind it, a little insinuation that maybe things could get a little out of hand if said theater owner chooses to collaborate with terrorists (and please, don't tell me I'm reaching, because this is the logic, it is being disseminated by pundits on mainstream "liberal media" as much as furtive blogs of neo-nazi thugs), then who could blame a patriot for taking direct action against a theater that obviously hates America?
It's going to happen. Somewhere where "Fahrenheit 911" is showing is going to be the object of violence. And the right wing will decry the "isolated incident", and excoriate anyone who implies that this is the harvest of the poisoned rhetoric of America's new crypto-fascist brown shirt class. And the work of choking off dissent will continue. A few more will conclude that it's just not worth it to fuck with these people.
And the right will continue to lament the irrational hatred of the left.
In case you haven't been paying attention, there has been a rising tide of threats and violence against "leftist terrorist lovers that hate America". These "make your displeasure known" deals are rapidly becoming code for "by any means necessary".
Is that so? Please link to documented reports of the rising tide of violence against these US citizens who choose to disagree with Bush policy?
No doubt the level of verbal ugliness has been ramped up by BOTH sides. To deny that is to lie. While it's quite easy to point out the escalating level of verbal bashing being put out by the left and right, I challenge you to prove your claim there is a rising tide of violence becoming committed against those on the left by the right. You're making a stretch.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Actually not.
Rove is currently a political appointee in the white house, meaning he gets paid by tax dollars. Before that he (well, really his PR firm Karl Rove & Company) got paid exactly the same way this republican PR firm gets paid for doing the exact same kind of work.
No, by my logic a republican PR Firm that does PR for republican campaigns does PR for republican campaigns.
Try reversing it. You start with the conclusion and move to backwards. You should look at the criteria to determine if it is a Republican owned PR firm. Instead you just declare it so.
As for the differences, are you claiming that ol'George S. didn't work for Clinton when he was in the white house? Did he somehow become nonpartisan during that time? I'm sure all of us would love to hear your explanation of how Karl Rove ISN'T partisan right now because he is being paid with U.S. Tax dollars. How can you not be partisan when you are working for the executive branch of the president? I understand (as do you) that some offices tend to have people that stay between administrations, but the roles we are discussing that Rove and Stephanopolis filled obviously do not. Presidents are partisan, and we all know that most executive offices are filled with fellow partisans from the party.
Also you are wrong about Rove's company. It has always been known as a political consulting firm. It is not a public relations firm.
Lastly we have the fact that you still prefer to focus no the perceived messenger since you haven't addressed Michael Moore profiting from keeping secret the torture of Iraqi's.
I'm sure you'll address it someday though.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You should look at the criteria to determine if it is a Republican owned PR firm. Instead you just declare it so.
How is someone supposed to have a conversation with you when you just make up positions to argue against?
George S.
Not a campaign PR firm.
I'm sure all of us would love to hear your explanation of how Karl Rove ISN'T partisan right now because he is being paid with U.S. Tax dollars.
I seriously have no idea what the hell your are talking about here.
You claimed Rove is paid by bush now, and you are wrong.
Also you are wrong about Rove's company. It has always been known as a political consulting firm. It is not a public relations firm.
Aren't you a republican? You should know more about Rove.
Let's check out his .gov bio:
Prior to his current appointment, Karl Rove served as chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney 2000 Presidential campaign and as president of Karl Rove & Company, an Austin, Texas-based public affairs firm.
Rove's primary claim to fame is direct mail. Karl Rove & Company coordinated and publicized republican campaigns. RMR and Rove & Co do the exact same thing.
Originally posted by segovius
...that's democracy for ya.
'Move America Forward' (please) and 'Citizens United' (?) have started a campaign to ban Fahrenheit 911.
Apparently, according to David Bossie of CU:
This raise several points:
1) It is yet more evidence (like we needed it) of the fundie bi-polar mindset. Anything that criticizes Bush MUST by definition, be partisan. It couldn't be that someone is interested in the truth. Not possible.
Partisan or not, Moore has obviously made this film in an attempt to influence the election. Moore himself is branded as partisan because, well he is. He is a registered Democrat who spent much of the primary season campaigning for Clarke. That happens to be the definition of partisan. Moore isn't declared partisan because he criticizes Bush. He is declared partisan because he is campaigning for Democrats. Moore is obviously not interested in the truth or else he would have released his information about torture before he could make a buck off it. He also would have run people's comments to his questions instead of just their facial expressions. Lastly there have multiple charges across multiple films that Moore has his film crew lie about who they are and for whom they work. Lying to get at the truth doesn't help his case in that regard either.
2) Even if this ridiculous argument had the smallest iota of truth or accuracy contained within it's hollow and vacuous carapace, then you'd have to say so bloody what ??????. I mean hello ???? Is that a crime ?
Being partisan isn't a crime at all. However you can use it to inform the viewing public of what they are watching. In the trailer we get to watch Republicans have their words cut out of the movie. We also get to watch long-winded Democrats declare that the reason so many Republicans and Democrats voted for the Patriot Act was because... they didn't read it. We have the speech for example which was given in the context of humor, but is played outside of that context so that the words have a distorted meaning. We also of course have no mention of the Gore speech that was given within that same context as well, etc.
Even the part with the golf swing is doing nothing more than taking advantage of peoople's ignorance regarding the press, their gathering of statements, and going on and off the record.
All the word partisan begins to do, is inform a viewer of some of the tricks Moore will employ to tell his distorted view to the world and present it as truth.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
... tell his distorted view to the world and present it as truth.
I can't believe you actually typed this following the conversation above.
Originally posted by giant
How is someone supposed to have a conversation with you when you just make up positions to argue against?
Not a campaign PR firm.
I seriously have no idea what the hell your are talking about here.
You claimed Rove is paid by bush now, and you are wrong.
Aren't you a republican? You should know more about Rove.
Let's check out his .gov bio:
Rove's primary claim to fame is direct mail. Karl Rove & Company coordinated and publicized republican campaigns. RMR and Rove & Co do the exact same thing.
Checking, checking... nope still haven't addressed Michael Moore have you.
I can find you still wandering off about Rove, but what else is new in that regard for you.
Public affairs = political consulting.
As for not knowing what the hell I am talking about. You said Rove works for the White House now instead of being paid to consult for Bush. (He is still paid to consult just by the White House) You brought up the point that he is paid by the White House so you can "clarify" your conclusion from that since you don't like mine. The only conclusion I could see you drawing is that he is no longer paid by the Republican party but is still partisan. If that wasn't what you were trying to claim then clarify it.
But regardless, the point is moot. Address the topic of the thread. Michael Moore. Address the fact that he lets suffering continue by hiding the truth for a buck while claiming to expose the same thing.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
I can't believe you actually typed this following the conversation above.
Of course you can't believe it. Because according to you, anyone who doesn't have your exact worldview is stupid, distorted, lying, etc.
Get over yourself. Then you won't have so much trouble believing people can hold more views than your own.
Nick
I love this:
Originally posted by trumptman
Also you are wrong about Rove's company. It has always been known as a political consulting firm. It is not a public relations firm.
Originally posted by trumptman
Public affairs = political consulting.
You're a riot.
Originally posted by giant
Keep backpedalling. Would it really hurt you so much to admit that you were dead wrong?
I love this:
You're a riot.
So sad, you still haven't even addressed the thread. Since you can't be right on Rove, you have to start attacking me next. You are as predictable as the sun rising.
Address the thread.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Since you can't be right on Rove...
Absolutely mind-blowing.
.
A PR firm who's sole purpose it is to sell Republicanism is not like the other groups mentioned (see Rageous's subtle and well worded post) . . . and they lied about their 'grass roots' origins!
Is that basic to the Republican 'values' that they purport to promote: lying like that?
I hope not . .. especially in the service of a back-door attempt at strong-arm censorship.
Originally posted by trumptman
Lastly we have the fact that you still prefer to focus no the perceived messenger since you haven't addressed Michael Moore profiting from keeping secret the torture of Iraqi's.
I'm sure you'll address it someday though.
Nick
Instead of flaming each other, does anyone care to read and respond to my previous post, the one that says the AP had footage of US soldiers conducting a raid and beating/abusing Iraqi citizens on camera long before Abu Ghraib?
This was footage distributed by the AP that was ignored by all major American news outlets. This is (reportedly) the same footage that is in Fahrenheit 911, and was also aired on Australian television.
So it was not "secret" footage, it was footage shopped out by the AP that no one in the States cared to pick up. It may have been mismarketed, actively suppressed, or simply overlooked. But it was definitely not secret.
There are plenty of reasons to bash Michael Moore. But trying to spin this into a simple case of him hiding evidence of torture? That's utterly ridiculous.
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
Instead of flaming each other, does anyone care to read and respond to my previous post, the one that says the AP had footage of US soldiers conducting a raid and beating/abusing Iraqi citizens on camera long before Abu Ghraib?
This was footage distributed by the AP that was ignored by all major American news outlets. This is (reportedly) the same footage that is in Fahrenheit 911, and was also aired on Australian television.
So it was not "secret" footage, it was footage shopped out by the AP that no one in the States cared to pick up. It may have been mismarketed, actively suppressed, or simply overlooked. But it was definitely not secret.
There are plenty of reasons to bash Michael Moore. But trying to spin this into a simple case of him hiding evidence of torture? That's utterly ridiculous.
Gizz,
I don't think this is the same footage. I am willing to admit that I don't have any other basis for this than Moore's own explanation of the matter. I'm sure if the footage were an AP feed, he would have mentioned how others could have shown it as well.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
Absolutely mind-blowing.
It is mind-blowing isn't it. How you can post, what, about ten times and still never address the actual subject of the thread.
Nick
setup:
Open with a deep gong and 3 sec. of slow motion footage of 911, that fades into the now infamous footage of bush on the golf course
Bush on the golf course:"..."
fade into random intimidateing shots of admin officials and gas price signs
queue announcer: "Bush sent us to Iraq for oil...(yada yada yada)"
over some stills of the military in Iraq and flash up the text of favorable movie reviews (although most would be as fake as the movie its self)
then have the announcer speak a little truth: "America-hating terrorists give Fahrenheit 9/11 their highest rating of five turbans"
Fade to the MPAA info and rating.
That would be a killer ad
Originally posted by a_greer
Really Long and Lame attempt at humor...........etc etc etc
You don't use Macs do you? Or maybe you're just having an "off" day from a creative standpoint?
So....any news regarding "Sadom Husain"?
Originally posted by BRussell
So let me get this straight. Michael Moore puts out a film against Bush. Conservatives make a website against Moore. Shocking, all.
No.
Conservatives organize a campaign to intimidate theater owners into not showing Michael Moore's film.
In case you haven't been paying attention, there has been a rising tide of threats and violence against "leftist terrorist lovers that hate America". These "make your displeasure known" deals are rapidly becoming code for "by any means necessary".
The idea that "hateful partisanship" is shared in equal measure by America's left and right is a lie. The frequent use of "hate" on these boards to describe critique of Bush policies is a vicious lie.
At heart, the American right is becoming a entity of implicit violence and intimidation, increasingly crossing into explicit violence and extra-legality.
Read Ann Coulter. Read Rush Limbaugh. Read Michael Savage. Read Bill O'Reilly. These are the voices that speak for the "patriots". They speak of Democrats and liberalism as traitorous and deserving of violent repression. They equate criticism of Bush with support of terrorism and hatred of America. They are very serious.
What is to be done with people who "support terrorists?" Who could blame a patriot if they took matters into their own hands? The very survival of America is at stake.
So if an organized rightist campaign to encourage theater owners to think twice about booking "Fahrenheit 911" seems to have a little extra heat behind it, a little insinuation that maybe things could get a little out of hand if said theater owner chooses to collaborate with terrorists (and please, don't tell me I'm reaching, because this is the logic, it is being disseminated by pundits on mainstream "liberal media" as much as furtive blogs of neo-nazi thugs), then who could blame a patriot for taking direct action against a theater that obviously hates America?
It's going to happen. Somewhere where "Fahrenheit 911" is showing is going to be the object of violence. And the right wing will decry the "isolated incident", and excoriate anyone who implies that this is the harvest of the poisoned rhetoric of America's new crypto-fascist brown shirt class. And the work of choking off dissent will continue. A few more will conclude that it's just not worth it to fuck with these people.
And the right will continue to lament the irrational hatred of the left.
You're either with us or against us. This is war.
Originally posted by addabox
In case you haven't been paying attention, there has been a rising tide of threats and violence against "leftist terrorist lovers that hate America". These "make your displeasure known" deals are rapidly becoming code for "by any means necessary".
Is that so? Please link to documented reports of the rising tide of violence against these US citizens who choose to disagree with Bush policy?
No doubt the level of verbal ugliness has been ramped up by BOTH sides. To deny that is to lie. While it's quite easy to point out the escalating level of verbal bashing being put out by the left and right, I challenge you to prove your claim there is a rising tide of violence becoming committed against those on the left by the right. You're making a stretch.