Kathleen, I don't mean to discredit your opinions or anything but you seemed very fond of the...hmm...let me euphemistically call it anti-republican hillbilly metaphor story which ponrauil posted. That one is nothing else but a brainwashing tool, just as the article we are discussing. Disagreeing with this but praising the other one seems to me hypocritical. And I am sorry if this sounds harsh, it's not meant to be an insult or anything.


As far as politics in general are concerned, I wish that the European Union got more attention from the media. It's such a difference from conventional election campaigns bullshit that we are fed with, not only in the US but I bet that In all of our countries (albeit, not to the same extent). As somebody who is fascinated by the idea of the "homo politicus", this is the first time that I am genuinely disgusted by politics, by how politicians act, and especially by how their followers think. It's a shame really.

Seriously man... It is just that: a story. It's bound to be a bit caricatural. It's just a way to get some points across. I don't see how this could be considered as brainwash. I actually do see, hear and read a lot of pro-republicans that tend to stick with the "democrats=spending/taxes/freedom infringement" thing (if you don't just read this thread for a start :) ) without looking any further than that.

Now I agree with you that this works both ways but it doesn't make the points made in that story any less relevant. It just points at a few important things US citizens daily quality of life actually owes to the so called "liberals". Aren't there any?

It doesn't say Republicans are crap and good for nothing, it just says look around you and remember where this and that comes from before switching to everything is black or white. I'm pretty sure a similar story could be written the other way around. Actually I'd be surprised it doesn't already exist as this one is quite old...


Ponrauil

Ponrauil, the little satire you posted attributes EVERYTHING that has happened from a social policy rather than economical perspective to the democrats. Which is absolutely not true. This simply shows me that it is written for a manipulative purpose, just like the article about Obama. I agreed from the very beginning, it's very well written, and very clever, still...there's no difference whatsoever. The Republicans themselves are responsible for a lot of the things which the story underlines (you even mention that in your first part of your last post), there have been joint initiatives by senators and representatives of both parties, etc. etc...attributing all to the democrats is a lie meant to manipulate people and make them think "damn, i vote for those republicans but when was the last time they did something for me?". Which is a skewed perspective.

Now you call it just a "story". Well, then I call the Obama article "just some article".
They are both equally manipulative, the only difference is in that they address different social strata.

What? How does it attibute "EVERYTHING"? It doesn't. It just mentions stuff like quality standards or socialy orientated actions taken by the Dems. There are a lot of issues it doesn't address.


Well of course it's sided. It was written by a democrat, what did you expect? It's like Michael Moore's work being slagged off because it's partisan when that is the main point of his work. You shouldn't judge something for what it was never meant to be.


I see it more like an answer to the question "When's the last time the Dems did something for me?".
Again it doesn't attribute ALL to the democrats, or deny EVERYTHING the republicans have achieved. It just recalls to the Joe-republicans of the US that SOME important things are to be attributed to the dems.


I'd call it just another article too, because there have been so many like this throughout this campaign, even during the primaries. But I also make a difference between an invented story, that will be obviously be different to reality, and an article that presents itself as serious and backed-up.

My reading is that the story is manipulative in a pro-dem way, not anti-rep way. I have much less issues with biased stuff when it's pro than when it's anti. And the Obama article is pretty much just that.


Ponrauil

I hear what you are saying (and I don't get insulted easily). However, and in my mind it's a great big difference, what is contained in ponrauil's essay is fact. It's definitely slanted in one direction, no doubt about it, but the facts are (I'll say mostly) verifiable. All of those things in that essay were fought for by the Democratic party and would not likely be in place otherwise. Does it leave out a lot - certainly.

On the other hand, the innuendo and whispering campaign that has gone on about Obama, coupled with the outright lies that seem to have become set in stone absolutely disgusts me. I can respect your right to vote for whomever you please (and I do) but please if you are going to try to defend your position don't use lies (or half truths) to do it.

To be perfectly frank I have received an enormous amount of negative, unfactual e-mail about Obama. With all the leftist leaning Democratic friends that I have I have NEVER received a negative, lying e-mail about McCain in this election. What I do get is positive stuff about the democrats NOT negative stuff about the other candidate or the republicans.

I have yet to see a positive ad saying what McCain will do that is different from the last 8 years. Give me a convincing argument to vote for him and I will at least read it and check out the facts. But if you keep telling me how Obama is a muslim, a terrorist, a socialist etc and you mention his plans to sell this country to Iran, and how could he really afford that education, I won't pay much attention.

So in conclusion, while I appreciated ponrauil's essay, it was in no way an unfactual, negative diatribe about "the other side". What it did do was highlight why one side might be better NOT why the other side is worse.

And to address your second comment - there is an article in the New York Times today about Europe here (entitled Suddenly Europe Looks Pretty Smart):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/we...=1&oref=slogin

If you can't read it I'll be happy to copy and paste it for you.

What I meant is that everything mentioned in the article is attributed to the democrats EXCLUSIVELY. Which is bollocks. Republicans contributed towards the same social issues. It's not like the republicans never considered bringing electricity to some god forsaken villages. And it's plenty of republicans who for example defend the all the protectionist acts who keep the sugar industry running. And there's plenty of other examples. Once again, the issues discusses by your stories are achievements which should NOT be exclusively attributed to the democrats. Am I clear enough now?


Then why do you even argue with me? That's what I said from the beginning. Praising this one but blaming a republican who doesn't do anything different is hypocritical. That's all I stated. Read again.


And this is wrong. Read my first paragraph because it addresses the same issue.


An invented story? It's not an invented story. Most of the things in it are "harder facts" than proportion to which the facts in your nice story are to be attributed to the democrats only. It's the implications to which the author alludes what makes that text to be ...disgusting really.

Partially agree with this. Just imagine we wrote a great book together. I wrote 40 percent of it and you wrote 60 percent of it. And then some critic would tell my fans: "Stupid fans of DevilsSon, they keep on preaching him while in fact Ponrauil has written the parts which they like best" The story is pro-dems but at the same time it is heavily discrediting the republicans and to me it's equally bad. And as i said before, the two articles are obviously addressing different social strata. While I find your satire really witty and amusing, I find the Obama article disgusting, still there is no difference in purpose.

I heavily doubt those are facts. I am sure the republicans contributed if not initiated themselves some of the policies which are described by that little witty story.

And I completely agree with the rest of your post. Also, cheers for the article. It was definitely a good read. Reminds people that politics is about policies, rather than throwing mud at each other.

Stuff like quality standards in whatever the industry were never initiated by the right wing. And that works for any country, not just the US. Just take Ralph Nader's history with the car industry and what he had to face and go through, when that was just obvious safety issues.
Find me one thing in that story that is wrongly attributed to the dems and I'll reconsider my position.


I'm not arguing, I'm discussing :). And I'm doing so because you also stated that the story was a brainwash attempt and I disagree.


By "invented story" I was referring to the day in the life of Joe Republican story, not the article that pretends to be serious and backed up. And no, I'm sorry, the article is not about harder facts. It's about details in Obama's life (who gives a flying **** about his student room mates?) that are twisted into major issues when they are not.

Would a guy like Colin Powell swin across the pond to support a potential terrorist friend?

A guy can bring stuff like that up on the net and US intelligence doesn't care? They've sent strangers to Guantanamo for less than what this guy implies in his article.

Can't be that serious now can it?


Well I do see a difference in purpose. To me it's not the same purpose to say "Open your eyes and see some of what we've accomplished in the past" than to say "Open your eyes and see what a danger this one man may be".


Ponrauil

Are you really going to make me research every single point?

1. Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (a Democrat) signed the new Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) into law on June 24, 1938. The new law significantly increased federal regulatory authority over drugs by mandating a pre-market review of the safety of all new drugs, as well as banning false therapeutic claims in drug labeling without requiring that the FDA prove fraudulent intent. The law also authorized factory inspections and expanded enforcement powers, set new regulatory standards for foods, and brought cosmetics and therapeutic devices under federal regulatory authority. This law, though extensively amended in subsequent years, remains the central foundation of FDA regulatory authority to the present day.[16]

2. All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too.

The American Federation of Labor (AFL) was founded by Samuel Gompers. By 1904, AFL-affiliated unions had a membership of over 1.4 million nationwide. Under Gompers's leadership, the AFL advocated an approach known as "business" or "pure and simple" unionism, which emphasized collective bargaining to reach its goals. Demands were centered around improvements to the immediate work environment, like better wages, hours and working conditions. After 1907, he encouraged the AFL to take political action, usually in alliance with Democrats, to "elect their friends" and "defeat their enemies."

3. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

The publication of The Jungle in the US in 1906, shocked the public with the poor working conditions and unsanitary practices in meatpacking plants in the United States, specifically Chicago. Meatpacking plants, like many industries in the early 20th century, were known to overwork their employees, failed to maintain adequate safety measures, and actively fought unionization. In the early part of the century, they used the most recent immigrants and migrants as strikebreakers in labor actions taken by other workers, also usually immigrants or early descendants.

In the 1930s and early 1940s, however, workers achieved unionization under the CIO's United Packinghouse Workers of America (UPWA). An interracial committee led the organizing in Chicago, where the majority of workers in the industry were black, and other major cities, such as Omaha, Nebraska, where they were an important minority in the industry. UPWA workers made important gains in wages, hours and benefits. In 1957 the stockyards and meatpacking employed half the workers of Omaha. The union supported a progressive agenda, including the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. While the work was still difficult, for a few decades workers achieved blue-collar, middle-class lives from it.

I'm running out of time here but you get the idea. All the quotes are from wikipedia since I can't write an entire paper here LOL.

Kathleen, I love ya!! :)