Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal dissent?
 

Ted Rall is one of the most passionate, articulate writers we have in America today. He understands democracy and exposes those who wish to slowly repeal it.

I have heard Rush Limbaugh do an entire segment bashing the man, without once mentioning his name. Rush did not want Ted to lift the veil of ignorance from his listeners minds.

Rall's latest is a masterpiece.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/2005122...ationawareness

I put this one right up there with republican jesus.
http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20050201

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal dissent?
 

I need to read no further than the following quote from the article:

indicates that the White House is flipping ahead to the next page in its Hitler playbook

To know that this author has precisely zero credence.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

I believe every letter of this:

[ QUOTE ]
As did the phony Verizon employee tearing out of my building's basement, leaving the phone switching box open, when I demanded to see his identification. He drove away in an unmarked van.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure this guy will disappear soon for revealing the GWB master plan to become Dictator For Life. Sounds like they are going to need lots of glowsticks and a really good air conditioner. I'm suprised they didn't already do it for the Jesus article. Must be getting sloppy.

Edit to ask pretty please for the link of Rush Limbaugh bashing this man that you mentioned. I don't remember it, but I bet it would be pretty good, if Rush even did one.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ted Rall is one of the most passionate, articulate writers we have in America today. He understands democracy and exposes those who wish to slowly repeal it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good to see you've cemented yourself as a troll.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

How does invoking the name of Hitler invalidate his opinion?

I don't get why people say this.

As for ex: This was back when the Minnesota Senator was killed in the plane crash and Rall suggested that it was an assasination by the government due to his anti-war stance.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

Didn't find El Rushbo, but I did turn this up:

Michelle Malkin about Ted Rall

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ted Rall is one of the most passionate, articulate writers we have in America today. He understands democracy and exposes those who wish to slowly repeal it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good to see you've cemented yourself as a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having an opinion makes one a troll?

I assume what you really mean to say is: having an opinion I don't like = troll.

Correct?

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

Just look at how many times Rall was wrong in this article.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

[ QUOTE ]

Having an opinion makes one a troll?

I assume what you really mean to say is: having an opinion I don't like = troll.

Correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you ever read Ted Rall?

Btw, his trollishness has been established over a while now. This is just the icing on the trollish cake. If he had replaced "Ted Rall" with "Michael Savage", I would have come to the same conclusion. Both are nutjobs

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Having an opinion makes one a troll?

I assume what you really mean to say is: having an opinion I don't like = troll.

Correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you ever read Ted Rall?

Btw, his trollishness has been established over a while now. This is just the icing on the trollish cake. If he had replaced "Ted Rall" with "Michael Savage", I would have come to the same conclusion. Both are nutjobs

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Yes, I've read Ted Rall.
2) Merely citing/approving/agreeing with nutjobs doesn't make you a troll; it makes you a nutjob, or merely someone who likes and agrees with nutjobs.

Maybe we just have different definitions of what a troll is. I think of it as meaning something along the lines of 'someone who posts on a message board with the explicit and obvious purpose of starting a flame war'.

I think you use it to mean 'someone I don't agree with.'

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

Let's not forget about Tillman

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't find El Rushbo, but I did turn this up:

Michelle Malkin about Ted Rall

[/ QUOTE ]

As a side note, everytime I see Michelle Malkin on a cable news network, I generally assume Ann Coulter must have been unavailable.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

Look, Wrong Again

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we just have different definitions of what a troll is. I think of it as meaning something along the lines of 'someone who posts on a message board with the explicit and obvious purpose of starting a flame war'.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's my definition as well. So think. Why did he start this thread about Ted Rall if not to stir the shitpot?

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

We were all wrong about Pat Tillman. He told one of his fellow soldiers in Iraq that the war was bleeping illegal.
He was going to meet with Noam Chomsky when he returned. Its too bad we lost him, he could have been one of our greatest presidents ever.

I am glad you are exploring his work and its criticism. People hate him because he is a unique voice that is outside of the corporate media. Sometimes hes wrong, but hes usually right.

I just wish certain posters would stay out of my threads unless they wish to add to the discussion.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we just have different definitions of what a troll is. I think of it as meaning something along the lines of 'someone who posts on a message board with the explicit and obvious purpose of starting a flame war'.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's my definition as well. So think. Why did he start this thread about Ted Rall if not to stir the shitpot?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference between stirring the pot and trying to start a flame war. I'd guess half of the posts on the Politics forum are typically some form of schadenfreude meant to stir the shitpot, as you say.

But I assume he started a thread about Ted Rall hoping to start a discussion about Ted Rall and the content of Ted Rall's writing.

I get what you're saying, but in many ways this board is one big shitpot that's constantly stirred. I don't think that necessarily means stirring the shitpot is equivalent to intentionally starting a flame war -- let's make a distinction between stirring the shitpot (trying to start discussion that might include barbs thrown back and forth -- that's what politics and jockeying for power is all about, right?) versus a flame war (a post meant merely to upset people). I think we ought to be very careful about what we label as 'flaming' and 'trolling' in the Politics forum; it's much easier to spot in the poker forums (a poster whose only goal is to criticize, name-call, etc. and not contribute to the poker discussion) than it is in the Politics forum -- as a legitimate component of genuine political discouse is strong criticism, vivid dialouge and imagery, etc. I don't have much sympathy for those who come to the Politics forum and find all the debating and arguing in poor taste -- anyone who feels this way has come to the wrong place, IMO.

If you see no distinction between the two, that's fine -- if that's the case, however, then there probably isn't anyone here who isn't a troll, because if merely saying you agree, respect, or like Ted Rall constitutes the intentional stirring of the shitpot, which is tantamount to starting a flame war, which makes the poster in question a troll - then we're all guilty of it or something similar, except for those too cowardly or ignorant to have strong opinions.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

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

The first contraversy on this page is very interesting.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

[ QUOTE ]
How does invoking the name of Hitler invalidate his opinion?

I don't get why people say this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it goes to your credibility as a poster when you are constantly using sources that hold extreme views or draw extreme conclusions or make extreme comparisons. And since you should know this will be the reaction of even posters who generally are more likely to agree with your overall views, then that brings up the question of whether your post is sincere or rather intentional trolling.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does invoking the name of Hitler invalidate his opinion?

I don't get why people say this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it goes to your credibility as a poster when you are constantly using sources that hold extreme views or draw extreme conclusions or make extreme comparisons. And since you should know this will be the reaction of even posters who generally are more likely to agree with your overall views, then that brings up the question of whether your post is sincere or rather intentional trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does having opinions that are unpopular or not widely held automatically make you a troll? Or similarly, why does merely citing someone who shares your not-widely-held views make you a troll?

I don't understand; is bringing up anything controversial trolling? That's what I seem to be gathering from you and BCPVP.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

Just a quick question, what happens in 2008, when Bush doesn't win reelection, to all the "dictator for life" and "tyranny" people? Do they still insist that GWB, the man they call an idiot, is somehow pulling the strings on the nation even when out of office?

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

No one is saying that this post constitutes an instant troll label. It's the general tone and content of almost all his posts here that makes it so. This is just further evidence. Even though I don't agree with you on just about everything, I still don't consider you a troll, DVaut.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

They only attack me because I am such an effective arguer.

They can't dispute my statements so they go after my character. They are used to the faux news dem-punching bags like Colmes.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just a quick question, what happens in 2008, when Bush doesn't win reelection, to all the "dictator for life" and "tyranny" people? Do they still insist that GWB, the man they call an idiot, is somehow pulling the strings on the nation even when out of office?

[/ QUOTE ]

GWB does not pull any strings. The monied elite pull the strings and he moves.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

So then it's not Bush you have a problem with?

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

GWB is the figure-head of the interests of the monied elite in the US. They are people who want to cut taxes for the ultra wealthy and slash wages for the working class.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

Last I checked I was working class. Last I checked, I got a tax cut. Last I checked, my wages have increased. Do you have any actual data to back up your claim? Or, are you just repeating what they tell you to?

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

[ QUOTE ]
The monied elite pull the strings and he moves.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've asked you to back your ridiculous statements with credible evidence before, and you have failed to do so. Nonetheless, I'll prompt you again - please cite the evidence which led you to this thoughtful, educated conclusion. First define the "moves" you indicate, and then reference the monied elite "puppeteers" who initiated the move.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why does having opinions that are unpopular or not widely held automatically make you a troll? Or similarly, why does merely citing someone who shares your not-widely-held views make you a troll?

I don't understand; is bringing up anything controversial trolling? That's what I seem to be gathering from you and BCPVP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously in this forum over all others, the line between trolling and merely holding an unpopular opinion is going to be very blurry. As an example, when someone espouses opinions say that are exremely and blatantly racist or uses sources that are, there is not only the possibility that such a poster is just a nutjob, but also more likely that he doesn't really believe those views and is just trying to stir things up in a forum where they are always stirred up anyway.

And regarding the OP's post and criticisms of his using sources that compare a president he doesn't like to Hitler, how would you feel if I used sources comparing a leftwing politician to Lenin? Trying to paint a politician and his views as exremely radical one way or the other is usually just a case of political hackjob demagoguery by a person who only cares about persuading others to his views and doesn't care if he uses false sources or misleading conclusions to do so, in addition to perhaps not having a firm grasp of logic in the first place.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

There you go misrepresenting his words.

He wasnt comparing the president to hitler, did you actually read it? He is comparing his tactics to hitler's tactics, which is completely true.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

Lists of Bush's donors are widely avaiable.

Bush is pro-ultra wealthy and anti-american on the issues of:

Protecting the environment
Energy Policy
Privatization of Social Security
Health Care
Illegal immigration
and Tax Cuts for the rich

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

How does invoking the name of Hitler invalidate his opinion?

Because it's hyperbolic and completely innacurate. The Nazi reference is so overused that those who use it only serve to minimize the true enormity of Nazi Germany.

Then there's the Jewish thing. Calling the President who is the staunchest supporter of Israel in US History "Hitler-like" is so laughable that I fear I demean myself for even lowering myself to answer.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

[ QUOTE ]
And regarding the OP's post and criticisms of his using sources that compare a president he doesn't like to Hitler, how would you feel if I used sources comparing a leftwing politician to Lenin? Trying to paint a politician and his views as exremely radical one way or the other is usually just a case of political hackjob demagoguery by a person who only cares about persuading others to his views and doesn't care if he uses false sources or misleading conclusions to do so, in addition to perhaps not having a firm grasp of logic in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with this in the least; but I don't think political demagoguery is trolling -- it's just par for the course. I don't think you have to look far in the ranks of politicians, media punditry, etc. to find a demagogue or two. We should certainly expect to find some level of demagoguery here.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

He didnt call him hitler-like, he called his tactic of using an unending war to stifle internal dissent hitler-like, which is true.

GWB loves the Jewish state because it is a prerequisite for the rapture. what happens to the Jews during the rapture anyway?

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

GWB loves the Jewish state because it is a prerequisite for the rapture. what happens to the Jews during the rapture anyway?

Well, hold on a minute. Some Christian fundies support Israel for that reason, true, but it's a stretch to sat that Dubya does. More likely he supports israel because they're the only true republic in the region, but I guess that doesn't fit your Weltanschauung.

As for what happens to Jews in the event of the Rapture, I believe devout Jews, like devout Christians get whisked up to the firmament while the rest of us sinners have to stay here and deal with the tribulation.

But why trust the word of an avowed unbeliever like me. I'd suggest you try Rapture Ready instead. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

The best part is the Rapture Index. I'm bookmarking it. That site rocks.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

I think he supports Israel because they are our client state and proxy army in the region.

I believe that it is a falacy that our government cares about the nature of foreign countries' political systems unless vilifing them is convienent for us with respect to propaganda.

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

I especially like the hate mail from the post-trib and mid-trib Rapture supporters

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal dissent?
 

yes

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

So, to answer the OP, I'd like to know what the title of this thread and the content of the OP have to do with each other?

Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
 

Its a quote (that is true) from the link I posted.