|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/09/2004 10:31:08 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So what's your point, Ron? |
I thought that my point was fairly clear: Many, if not most, of the protests in NYC were coordinated by socialist and/or communist supported organizations, and, as a rule, those are not the kinds of organizations that protest Democratic/Socialistic gatherings.
Ron |
Ok, then I misunderstood, but still don't understand the above statement. Please elaborate. |
The communist and socialist groups mentioned, as well as others, are often the organizers behind many protests - e.g. those that took place at the G8 conference, the WTO conference, etc. These organizations are very adept at convincing large numbers of people, who have nothing better to do, to carry signs, etc. that proclaim things that "sound" good to liberal-minded, mostly young people who don't have enough life experience to carry those good-sounding ideas to their logical conclusions - ideas like "Bring our troops home, NOW!". While we'd ALL like to bring our troops home, NOW is not the time to do it. As even you agreed, Olyuzi, in another thread, bringing the troops home NOW would only result in greater loss of life, and possibly even civil war.
But the college age liberals can't think that far ahead - so they carry the signs. Then, too, the placard slogans are simplistic and those that everyone can agree with - like "no draft", but in the context of the protests, those messages carry implications, some overt, many subliminal. For example, if the message were ONLY "no draft" it would have been just as appropriate in Boston, as in New York, would it not? - so why WASN'T it in Boston? The reason is because by being in New York during the RNC it sends a subliminal message to all the other draft-age protesters that it's BUSH who is intent on resurrecting the draft - that's why. Defeating anything Republican / Big Business is at the top of the socialist/communist agenda. That's why they support / initiate protests wherever Republican or Big Business meetings are the centers of attention.
Ron |
|
|
|
09/09/2004 10:41:24 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I find it funny and ironic that some say this type of information is not important. Yet since the Swift Boat ads (which the credibility of has been torn to shreds) starting showing up and since the media took off on them, Bush has now taken a several point lead in the polls. I also now know 2 democrats who will now vote Bush because they say the Swift Boat 'controversy' has raised questions about Kerry.
These are the same questions that have been raised for years now about Bush's service record. Yet the media just drops them and does not pursue. Every once and a while I find an article like this out that does not get its just attention.
And people say the media has a liberal bias? If that were the case, all those 527 ads against Bush would have secured the election for Kerry. Since there were many ads running all the time against Bush the media didn̢۪t pick up on, but it only took one 527 ad against Kerry and the media went nuts. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All the 527's from Move on and so on are so loony that level headed people dismiss them for what they are. The media continues to help Kerry but this guy can not even convince himself of his convictions. Good luck with your dreams. |
|
|
|
09/09/2004 10:45:46 PM · #78 |
Oh man, this is just too easy -- now let's just see if the so-called liberal media exposes the outright bias of the originating source behind the story.
First, a little background on the Republican Noise Machine, here's how it works:
1. Talk radio is dominated by conservatives, which is where many of these stories originate. Accordingly, they give some buzz to whatever story they want to play up that day.
2. A network of quasi-news organizations (including right-wing blogs) provide some ink, to put some meat on the story and get things boiling.
3. Cable Network talking heads (i.e., Hardball, O'Rielly Factor, Sean Hannity, Scarborough, Miller, et al.) then pick up the story, once there's enough of buzz behind it.
4. At this point the mainstream media is forced to run the story, since by now the item is "newsworthy."
Of course, the so-called liberal media are just a bunch of f**king wimps that are just scared sh*tless about being labeled "liberal," so they never expose the factual conservative dominance of our media industry. Anyhow, I seriously doubt that I can convince any of you of this (as you know what you know, and are not about to change your mind); however, I just wanted to offer this backgrounder before getting into the bias of the source behind this story.
1. CNSNews.com runs story [ link ]:
2. Matt Drudge posts a link to the story on his site (note that the DrudgeReport.com website is one of the most widely visited websites on the web):
3. I presume that this story has been getting a lot of airtime in the talking heads circuit (I've not tuned in to cable news today, but the model is pretty solid, so I assume that the talking heads have had a field day with this story).
4. As LoudDog has proven, mainstream media (a.k.a., the so-called liberal media) has now picked up the story.
Now, here's some info on the source of behind this story:
1. CNSNews.com is run and operated by the Media Research Center:
[ Who Is? link may not work as its session specific. ]
2. The mission statement of the Media Research Center (MRC) reads:
"On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC)." [ link ]
3. Moreover, the MRC offers the Drudge Report as one of their trusted sources for information [link]:
Now, many on this board, and the list is long, will simply say, Yeah, we gotta stick it to the liberal media, and that's just what MRC is doing. Well, that rationalization may be sufficient for you guys, but to me it simply proves the validity of the Republican Noise Machine model and how, in fact, the media is dominated by a strong conservative bias.
As David Brock, author of the Republican Noise Machine noted (I paraphrase), It's not important that Republicans get the facts right, it's only important that they throw up enough mud to cloud the truth.
Let's just see if the so-called liberal media covers this part of the story.
Message edited by author 2004-09-10 01:46:20.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2004 10:56:59 PM · #79 |
David Brock is no reliable mental heavyweight. You really have to be in the ultra-left to say the media is conservative. Way out there even the most Liberal Kerry can not satisfy you. Think of where the mud is coming from, the loosers.
Message edited by author 2004-09-09 23:08:33. |
|
|
|
09/09/2004 10:58:23 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Must be a lot of Democrats that you despise, too - like the 29 Democratic Senators and 82 Democratic Congressmen who were also "misled" into voting to authorize Bush to proceed against Sadaam Hussein without U.N. approval.
I think that you should work to insure that they are not re-elected.
Ron |
Well if you can̢۪t trust the president to not mislead you, than whom can you trust? Why shouldn̢۪t they have trusted what the president told them? Shit almost everyone did for a while. I mean when the entire white house is screaming, "Iraq has WMD's", why wouldn̢۪t we believe them? |
I sure wish I could get ahold of some of that shit you've been smoking! |
|
|
|
09/09/2004 11:23:27 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
David Brock is no reliable mental heavyweight. You really have to be in the ultra-left to say the media is conservative. Way out there even the most Liberal Kerry can not satisfy you. Think of where the mud is coming from, the loosers. |
Just the type of response I expected from you, and those that share your world view.
Don't presume to know me. If you even knew one scintilla about me, or had at least read my posts carefully, you would never describe me as an ultra-left liberal. I have sworn to protect and serve the constitution twice, I believe in responsible free-trade, I believe in the just-war principle, I understand and support the use of justified deadly force, I'm a strong Kerry supporter, and -- more importantly -- I have good deal of understanding of politics, media, and our electoral process.
I've read your posts and, frankly, they are completely uninformed, but it would frankly be too much work to refute them... besides, I don't aim to change minds -- that's impossible --, all I aim for is to offer information. What you do or think of it is inconsequential to me.
As I noted in the previous post, and many others, you (and those that share your world view) are already convinced, and there's nothing I can say to make you rethinking your position. I accept that. Moreover, in this instance, there's a clear generational gap.
.......................................
P.S. Glad to see that the name David Brock resonates with you, and with plenty of reason, too. Mr. Brock is the guy that Republicans seeked on Mr. Clinton to connect him to Paula Jones. Of course, extreme right-wing Republicans/conservatives disavowed Mr. Brock after he revealed his homosexuality. Of course, while Mr. Brocked served Republicans he learned all about the Republican Noise Machine and other dirty tricks. Of course, if Mr. Brock is a homosexual, then he must not be credible, right?
Message edited by author 2004-09-09 23:34:48.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 12:20:13 AM · #82 |
ABC news is now right leaning too!!!
Please, if this is just a right wing conspiracy, tell me how a 1970 typwriter can make superscript and do fonts that didn't exist in typewriters? Explain that, and maybe I'll consider your theory.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 12:28:26 AM · #83 |
Per ABC news:
More than half a dozen document experts contacted by ABC News said they had doubts about the memos' authenticity.
"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available â€Â¦ indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"
Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:
The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.
The memos include superscript, i.e. the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.
The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.
The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.
The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.
..............
Explain ABC's findings and maybe I'll beleive your conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 12:40:30 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Explain ABC's findings and maybe I'll beleive your conspiracy theory. |
For a so-called "independent," as you often claim to be, you sure love to follow.
Your excuse (i.e., conspiracy theory) is the simplest of ways of not having to think for yourself, nor of having to do any fact checking on your own (as I did). As I said, I'm not trying to convince you... I posted what I found, and that's all I can do.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 12:57:48 AM · #85 |
I've read your posts and, frankly, they are completely uninformed, but it would frankly be too much work to refute them... besides, I don't aim to change minds -- that's impossible --, all I aim for is to offer information. What you do or think of it is inconsequential to me.
Well bdobe by your post of wisdom you indicate that you are not an ultra liberal, yet you support Kerry. A person voting for the most liberal candidate in America is suspect of having an ultral liberal bent. Your sound, of all postings, sound of an individual who is fixated of opinion.
What is conservative is talk radio because nobody wants to hear Liberal radio. Liberals simply trash this country and people do not want to hear that crap. Outside of Fox everything else is liberal. Rather is a documented liberal and he tried a fast one and was caught and you can not even acknowledge that what is wrong is wrong. Kitty Kelly's book of mud gets three days and you say the media is conservative.
Fox news grows and grows because the liberal media are basically socialist and as usual they blame America for all the sins of the world. Yes, they have their choir but for the first time there is Fox and Talk radio which appeals to the majority of Americans who do not lean to the left.
I am not sold on anything, but the moment any one in my party begins to sound like the looney left...I depart. I want no association with Socialist or communist. Nothing personal, these are systems that just don't work. But hey, by your condescending tone you are the smarter one whose thoughts scintillate with gems of wisdom.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 03:11:40 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Well bdobe by your post of wisdom you indicate that you are not an ultra liberal, yet you support Kerry. A person voting for the most liberal candidate in America is suspect of having an ultral liberal bent.
***hahahaha...you are a funny man, Graphicfunk if you think that John Kerry is "the most liberal candidate in America." It just goes to show me just how much you live in a cave. I guess it feels a lot safer in there with your talk radio and their hate messages.
Fox news grows and grows because the liberal media are basically socialist and as usual they blame America for all the sins of the world.
***Which media in the US is socialist? This is more garbage.
But hey, you are the smarter one whose thoughts scintillate with gems of wisdom. |
***This last part is the ONLY thing you got right. |
|
|
|
09/10/2004 03:28:01 AM · #87 |
Looks like a couple of points need clarification:
1. I have not said that the mainstream media is conservative. Here's what I wrote:
Originally posted by bdobe:
Of course, the so-called liberal media are just a bunch of f**king wimps that are just scared sh*tless about being labeled "liberal," so they never expose the factual conservative dominance of our media industry. Anyhow, I seriously doubt that I can convince any of you of this (as you know what you know, and are not about to change your mind); however, I just wanted to offer this backgrounder before getting into the bias of the source behind this story. |
2. Lemme explain what I mean by "factual conservative dominance of our media industry."
Basically, the conservative movement (through its various think-tanks, foundations, wealthy donors, etc.) learned to game the system/media some 30 years ago, when the conservative movement began its re-ascendance in our country (culminating in Mr. Reagan's election and continuing to the present). (As reference, look up: The American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute -- there are others, but these are the principle ones, specially the American Enterprise Institute.
Furthermore, conservatives of the 1950s and 1960s knew the following: A) They no longer belonged in the (Southern) Democratic party, as the party advocated Civil Rights and the enfranchisement of African Americans; B) They needed to jump ship, so they essentially hijacked the Republican party (note the lack of so-called Northern Rockefeller Republicans in today's GOP); C) Conservatives of the period devised a strategy to flame the embers of White-male resentment against the politics of the late 1950s and 1960s, accordingly the Southern Strategy was born.
And this, essentially, is the genesis of the modern Republican party. Note how today's Republican power base is contingent on these two factors: A) The South, and; B) Let' say, the subtle, encouragement of White-male resentment against a popular culture that many of them feel rejects the White-male iconography.
Of course the preceding brushes over the past 40/50 years in very broad strokes, but I had to provide it as background to support how the "factual conservative dominance of our media industry" has occurred.
i. The conservative movement has laid down a well disciplined, and well funded, infrastructure that's geared to challenge (and dismantle) the legitimacy of: academia, the news media and a certain brand of popular culture.
ii. To compete against academia, conservatives established think tanks and funded conservative intellectuals. Moreover, to challenge the news media conservative created what was, at the time, new media outlets: talk radio and direct mail (note that Republicans were the first to set up what still is the most extensive and sophisticated voter data-base in the country). Thirdly, popular culture is often used by conservatives to drive wedge issues among the electorate (i.e., homosexuality, feminism, guns, etc.).
iii. Its taken about three decades, but the combination of the factors I listed above have lead to what I referred to as Mr. Brock's Republican Noise Machine model:
a. Talk radio is dominated by conservatives, which is where many of these stories originate. Accordingly, they give some buzz to whatever story they want to play up that day.
b. A network of quasi-news organizations (including right-wing blogs) provide some ink, to put some meat on the story and get things boiling.
c. Cable Network talking heads (i.e., Hardball, O'Rielly Factor, Sean Hannity, Scarborough, Miller, et al.) then pick up the story, once there's enough of buzz behind it.
d. At this point the mainstream media is forced to run the story, since by now the item is "newsworthy."
Now, the key part about the preceding model is this: After 30 years of a concerted and well organized effort to convince the public that the so-called liberal media cannot be trusted, journalists and the public have complete internalized this notion, and don't even challenge the assumption. (LoudDog!) Furthermore, it is under these conditions that "Liberal" has become a "dirty word" and, conversely, "Conservative" has become the preferred ideological label for a significant segment of the public, specially White-males. (Ron and GraphicFunk, I'll grant you this point about the political labels.) So, finally, we have a system wherein American journalists are afraid to be perceived as having a liberal-bias, for fear of proving the myth true; and, the general public simply assumes that they know what they know, and simply assume that the so-called liberal media must have a liberal bias.
3. Because strong ideological conservatives in the media know that what I have described is true, they know that the wimpy mainstream media journalist will not mount a direct and frontal challenge on the conservative modus operandi. And, if such a challenge were to be raised, conservatives in the media (and the public) would simply charge such journalists as being liberals, thus proving the myth; and, unfortunately, a lot of members of the public would simply accept the charge without questioning it. (LoudDog!)
Now, here's what I wrote in another thread about the true media bias:
"[T]he media is driven by "commercial" and "sensationalistic" interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias. All of us -- all U.S. citizens -- have much to complain about regarding the media, and the terrible job they're doing of covering substantive issues."
I also offered the following as sources for further reading, and to provide an alternative view-point on what we think we already know:
* Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
* Media Matters for America
* The Republican Noise Machine
* Control Room (documentary on how the Iraq war was covered by U.S. vs. Middle Eastern media)
* Out Foxed (documentary on the inner workings of the Fox News operation)
* What Liberal Media?
* Manufacturing Consent (summery)
.......................................
I know that this a long post, so, first, thank you for reading it and, two, I tried to include as much as possible, while remaining digestible and general. If you're interested in more details on any of what I've written above, please do your own research... as many of you know, I'm sure, this is extremely time consuming.
.......................................
GraphicFunk,
From your syntax, I presume that English is not your first language... y me parece que estoy correcto. Eres Cubano? No, quizás de Sur América? Bueno, no importa, sinceramente no nos vemos ojo a ajo en como vemos al mundo. Tu vota por to candidato, y yo votare por el mio. If English is your first language you'll have to forgive me for presuming.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 04:09:35 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The communist and socialist groups mentioned, as well as others, are often the organizers behind many protests - e.g. those that took place at the G8 conference, the WTO conference, etc. These organizations are very adept at convincing large numbers of people, who have nothing better to do, to carry signs, etc. that proclaim things that "sound" good to liberal-minded, mostly young people who don't have enough life experience to carry those good-sounding ideas to their logical conclusions - ideas like "Bring our troops home, NOW!". While we'd ALL like to bring our troops home, NOW is not the time to do it. As even you agreed, Olyuzi, in another thread, bringing the troops home NOW would only result in greater loss of life, and possibly even civil war.
But the college age liberals can't think that far ahead - so they carry the signs. Then, too, the placard slogans are simplistic and those that everyone can agree with - like "no draft", but in the context of the protests, those messages carry implications, some overt, many subliminal. For example, if the message were ONLY "no draft" it would have been just as appropriate in Boston, as in New York, would it not? - so why WASN'T it in Boston? The reason is because by being in New York during the RNC it sends a subliminal message to all the other draft-age protesters that it's BUSH who is intent on resurrecting the draft - that's why. Defeating anything Republican / Big Business is at the top of the socialist/communist agenda. That's why they support / initiate protests wherever Republican or Big Business meetings are the centers of attention.
Ron |
What proof do you have that these communist/socialist groups are the organizers of these demostrations/marches? United for Peace and Justice organized the RNC demonstration for the demonstration on the Sunday before the convention opened and they are neither communist or socialist.
The protesters for all of the demonstrations I have been to (not just the RNC, but anti-war rallies as well) have been a mix of old and young and I spoke to many who seemed to have a good head on their shoulders. Of course, if you want to speak about someone with nothing better to do with their time, then I suggest you catch up with President Bush on the golf course.
I also think it's wrong to associate only communist/socialists who are against the big business agenda. Many people who don't align themselves with either of those types of groups now see that big business as the bane of the free world and environment.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 08:34:46 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by louddog:
Explain ABC's findings and maybe I'll beleive your conspiracy theory. |
For a so-called "independent," as you often claim to be, you sure love to follow.
Your excuse (i.e., conspiracy theory) is the simplest of ways of not having to think for yourself, nor of having to do any fact checking on your own (as I did). As I said, I'm not trying to convince you... I posted what I found, and that's all I can do. |
As an independent my opinion is not clouded by my hatred for Bush. If everything you say is true, explain how that little "th" got there and maybe I'll believe you. I base my opinion on fact, not hatred and not my opinion of how biased the media is.
I know that little "th" could not have been done on a typwriter (among other things in that memo). If there is no explaination of where it came from, there is doubt about the memo's realness.
As I first stated, it's fishy. But all this is stupid anyway, who cares what happened 30 years ago.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 10:55:55 AM · #90 |
LoudDog,
First, I wonder if you read my last post. Secondly, you have a very simple way of arguing about politics. You simply dismiss the opposition as being "Bush haters," and that -- you belive -- explains away the substance of what's presented. I don't hate Mr. Bush, I simply disagree with his administration's policies. Thirdly, the objective of the story has already been archived, that is: Question the authenticity (i.e., create a diversion) of the memos quickly enough to blunt any political fallout, specially among Mr. Bush's base. Accordingly, if one is inclined to support Mr. Bush, one will belive that the memo's were forged; if, in the other hand, one is inclined to oppose the Bush administration, the recent memos (along with the many other well known "gaps" in the service record), simply throw into sharp relief the man we support and the man your camp supports.
Moreover, as to the authentic of the records, I frankly cannot argue if they are or not. As others have said, the copies CBS provided may just be replications of the originals, but that's just speculation. Without a doubt, however, there's one man that can outright refute what Lt. Colonel Killian reportedly wrote in those memos, that man, of course, is Mr. Bush.
Lastly, you're right, I, too, will not be voting based on something that happened or not-happened over 30 years ago. My vote will be influenced by recent history, and by my personal ideal of how I'd like my country to be lead.
.......................................
PS. Note that my original post on this specific subject was merely to: 1. Introduce the Republican Noise Machine model, 2. I then demonstrated how this story had followed the Republican Noise Machine model to a T, 3. I finally provided some very broad historical background to illustrate the tactical advantage that conservatives enjoy over the mainstream media.
PPS. Here's a great source for all current event stories coming out of DC, Talking Points Memo, written by Joshua Marshall. Here's what Mr. Marshall wrote about the memos, note that he concedes that CBS will have to offer more details. I provide this source because this is a channel of information I respect and trust. If you've read my previous posts you know that I don't respect the mainstream media. I only tune in to it to find out what the public at-large is talking about, then I search out my own sources of information (a tactic we should all employ -- though, admittedly, it takes a lot of work).
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by louddog:
Explain ABC's findings and maybe I'll beleive your conspiracy theory. |
For a so-called "independent," as you often claim to be, you sure love to follow.
Your excuse (i.e., conspiracy theory) is the simplest of ways of not having to think for yourself, nor of having to do any fact checking on your own (as I did). As I said, I'm not trying to convince you... I posted what I found, and that's all I can do. |
As an independent my opinion is not clouded by my hatred for Bush. If everything you say is true, explain how that little "th" got there and maybe I'll believe you. I base my opinion on fact, not hatred and not my opinion of how biased the media is.
I know that little "th" could not have been done on a typwriter (among other things in that memo). If there is no explaination of where it came from, there is doubt about the memo's realness.
As I first stated, it's fishy. But all this is stupid anyway, who cares what happened 30 years ago. |
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 11:20:52 AM · #91 |
Yeah but you have still not addressed the facts. How did the little "th" get there??? I'm not ignoring anything. If those memos are true, Bush tried to weasle his way out of the National Guard 30 years ago. I don't care about that, just as I don't care if Kerry shot half naked people in the back 30 years ago.
I didn't simply dismiss anything because it came from Bush haters. I look at everything and make an opinion based on the facts. I'd like to hear what you think I am dismissing. Please enlighten me. If anything, you are dismissing the facts of the little "th" because it was from the republican noise machine. Kind of hypocritical if you ask me.
The fact is, that little "th" could not have been put there by a typewriter 30 years ago. If this is just republican noise, explain away please. I appreciate your lesson on the republican noise model and how the right controls the media, but I'd still like an answer to my original question.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 11:31:17 AM · #92 |
louddog, the memos were not typed. LtC. Killian just had REALLY neat handwriting.
Jokes aside, it should be very easy to verify the memos. Just look the rest of Killian's files. Theoretically, everything around that time period should have been typed on the same typewriter.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 11:31:44 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
What proof do you have that these communist/socialist groups are the organizers of these demostrations/marches? United for Peace and Justice organized the RNC demonstration for the demonstration on the Sunday before the convention opened and they are neither communist or socialist. |
This Article] from NJ.COM says that one of the national coordinators of United for Peace and Justice is a woman named Leslie Cagan, who they ( NJ.COM ) describe as "the doyenne of America's anti-war movement".
Leslie Cagan is described in This Article in the Jewish Press thusly:
"Take Leslie Cagan, the chair of Pacifica̢۪s national board, who has a history of Communist Party membership dating back to the 1960̢۪s. In the early 1970̢۪s she was a member of the Venceremos Brigades, a group of American youth sent to Cuba for special political education and training. She remained a member of the CPUSA until at least the late 1980̢۪s; currently, she̢۪s a co-chair of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a spin-off of the Communist Party created after the Soviet Union imploded. She also heads up one of the main coalitions opposed to national security, United for Peace and Justice, a re-hash of the People̢۪s Coalition for Peace and Justice, the Communist Party̢۪s anti-Vietnam front."
Leslie Cagan is listed on the speakers list of IPPN ( the Independent Progressive Politics Network ) ( ref: Here ) with This Bio:
"Leslie Cagan has been a tireless organizer for 30 years: from the Viet Nam war to racism at home, from nuclear disarmament to lesbian/gay liberation, from fighting sexism to working against U.S. intervention. Leslie's coalition and organizing skills have put hundreds of thousands of people in the streets in many of the country's largest mobilizations and countless smaller public protests. Wrapping up seven years as the Director of the Cuba Information Project, Leslie coordinated the U.S. delegation to the World Youth Festival held in Cuba in the summer of 1997. She serves on the steering committee of the Same Boat Coalition in New York City, is a national co-chair of the Committees of Correspondence and is on the board of the Astraea National Lesbian Action Foundation."
She is listed as the author of:
"Why I Call Myself a Socialist
U.S.-Cuba Relations: An Overview
Coalitions and Alliances: Why We Need Them, How They Work, Why Are They So Hard to Maintain?
The Power and Limitations of Identity Politics"
It is not often that a National Organizer would work so hard for an organization that does not represent his/her ideology. I infer, therefore, that UFPJ is at least supportive of the communistic/socialistic agenda that Leslie Cagan espouses.
Ron
edited to correct links.
Message edited by author 2004-09-10 12:52:22. |
|
|
|
09/10/2004 11:53:01 AM · #94 |
LoudDog,
You're not reading my posts carefully. Granted, you might be at work and, rightfully, concentrating on other things. Here's what I wrote:
Originally posted by bdobe:
Moreover, as to the authenticity of the records, I frankly cannot argue if they are or not. As others have said, the copies CBS provided may just be replications of the originals, but that's just speculation. Without a doubt, however, there's one man that can outright refute what Lt. Colonel Killian reportedly wrote in those memos, that man, of course, is Mr. Bush.
|
Moreover, in the PPS of my last post I also noted:
Originally posted by bdobe:
PPS. Here's a great source for all current event stories coming out of DC, Talking Points Memo, written by Joshua Marshall. Here's what Mr. Marshall wrote about the memos, note that he concedes that CBS will have to offer more details. I provide this source because this is a channel of information I respect and trust. If you've read my previous posts you know that I don't respect the mainstream media. I only tune in to it to find out what the public at-large is talking about, then I search out my own sources of information (a tactic we should all employ -- though, admittedly, it takes a lot of work).
|
My point in the preceding posts has been, as I noted in the PS of my last post:
Originally posted by bdobe:
PS. Note that my original post on this specific subject was merely to: 1. Introduce the Republican Noise Machine model, 2. I then demonstrated how [the "TH"] story has followed the Republican Noise Machine model to a T, 3. I finally provided some very broad historical background to illustrate the tactical advantage that conservatives enjoy over the mainstream media.
|
Finally, I have not attempted to address the validity of the "TH" theory, as I'm not a forensic scientists.
I cannot be any clearer. If you've read my posts my point should be clear by now.
.......................................
Originally posted by louddog:
Yeah but you have still not addressed the facts. How did the little "th" get there??? I'm not ignoring anything. If those memos are true, Bush tried to weasle his way out of the National Guard 30 years ago. I don't care about that, just as I don't care if Kerry shot half naked people in the back 30 years ago.
I didn't simply dismiss anything because it came from Bush haters. I look at everything and make an opinion based on the facts. I'd like to hear what you think I am dismissing. Please enlighten me. If anything, you are dismissing the facts of the little "th" because it was from the republican noise machine. Kind of hypocritical if you ask me.
The fact is, that little "th" could not have been put there by a typewriter 30 years ago. If this is just republican noise, explain away please. I appreciate your lesson on the republican noise model and how the right controls the media, but I'd still like an answer to my original question. |
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 12:34:33 PM · #95 |
So then you are not disagreeing with me. The memos are fishy. That's all I was looking for. I didn't need a lesson on how the right controls the media.
It will be easy to prove this issue one way or the other if CBS allows it. We'll see what happens.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 12:41:54 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
"[T]he apostrophes are curlicues of the sort produced by word processors on personal computers, not the straight vertical hashmarks typical of typewriters. Finally, in some references to Bush's unit--the 111thFighter Interceptor Squadron--the "th" is a superscript in a smaller size than the other type. Again, this is typical (and often done automatically) in modern word processing programs. Although several experts allow that such a rendering might have been theoretically possible in the early 1970s, it would have been highly unlikely. Superscripts produced on typewriters--the numbers preceding footnotes in term papers, for example--were almost always in the same size as the regular type." [ link to Weekly Standard story ] |
Another interesting coincidence is if you retype the memo in Microsoft Word using all the default settings (i.e. Times New Roman, 12 point font, etc.) you get an exact duplicate of the CBS memo. All the line breaks happen at the exact same spots. Every letter lines up exactly the same as the CBS memo. Coincidence? |
|
|
|
09/10/2004 01:43:40 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
What proof do you have that these communist/socialist groups are the organizers of these demostrations/marches? United for Peace and Justice organized the RNC demonstration for the demonstration on the Sunday before the convention opened and they are neither communist or socialist. |
This Article] from NJ.COM says that one of the national coordinators of United for Peace and Justice is a woman named Leslie Cagan, who they ( NJ.COM ) describe as "the doyenne of America's anti-war movement".
Leslie Cagan is described in This Article in the Jewish Press thusly:
"Take Leslie Cagan, the chair of Pacifica̢۪s national board, who has a history of Communist Party membership dating back to the 1960̢۪s. In the early 1970̢۪s she was a member of the Venceremos Brigades, a group of American youth sent to Cuba for special political education and training. She remained a member of the CPUSA until at least the late 1980̢۪s; currently, she̢۪s a co-chair of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a spin-off of the Communist Party created after the Soviet Union imploded. She also heads up one of the main coalitions opposed to national security, United for Peace and Justice, a re-hash of the People̢۪s Coalition for Peace and Justice, the Communist Party̢۪s anti-Vietnam front."
Leslie Cagan is listed on the speakers list of IPPN ( the Independent Progressive Politics Network ) ( ref: Here ) with This Bio:
"Leslie Cagan has been a tireless organizer for 30 years: from the Viet Nam war to racism at home, from nuclear disarmament to lesbian/gay liberation, from fighting sexism to working against U.S. intervention. Leslie's coalition and organizing skills have put hundreds of thousands of people in the streets in many of the country's largest mobilizations and countless smaller public protests. Wrapping up seven years as the Director of the Cuba Information Project, Leslie coordinated the U.S. delegation to the World Youth Festival held in Cuba in the summer of 1997. She serves on the steering committee of the Same Boat Coalition in New York City, is a national co-chair of the Committees of Correspondence and is on the board of the Astraea National Lesbian Action Foundation."
She is listed as the author of:
"Why I Call Myself a Socialist
U.S.-Cuba Relations: An Overview
Coalitions and Alliances: Why We Need Them, How They Work, Why Are They So Hard to Maintain?
The Power and Limitations of Identity Politics"
It is not often that a National Organizer would work so hard for an organization that does not represent his/her ideology. I infer, therefore, that UFPJ is at least supportive of the communistic/socialistic agenda that Leslie Cagan espouses.
Ron
edited to correct links. |
***Ok, Ron...I'll concede. Leslie Cagan is a socialist. If you go to the UFPJ web site though, their unity statment says they are a coalition of over 840 groups with various idealogies, but with one firm goal in mind. That is to oppose the war agenda and militarism of the Bush administration and promote peace and justice. I never saw anything that said anything about promoting communist or socialist idealogy. So she may be a great organizer, but I don't see where you can even jump to the remote conclusion in your last couple of statements above, that because she's working so hard for them that the organization on the whole supports her socialist/communist idealogy. I think that's a big stretch, if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 01:59:33 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***Ok, Ron...I'll concede. Leslie Cagan is a socialist. If you go to the UFPJ web site though, their unity statment says they are a coalition of over 840 groups with various idealogies, but with one firm goal in mind. That is to oppose the war agenda and militarism of the Bush administration and promote peace and justice. I never saw anything that said anything about promoting communist or socialist idealogy. So she may be a great organizer, but I don't see where you can even jump to the remote conclusion in your last couple of statements above, that because she's working so hard for them that the organization on the whole supports her socialist/communist idealogy. I think that's a big stretch, if you ask me. |
Because if I DIDN'T jump to that conclusion, I would have to believe that the UFPJ, and their 800+ groups, were blind to the fact that she was a socialist when they gave her the position, and were, therefore, blind to the fact that she is USING them to further her agenda. |
|
|
|
09/10/2004 02:13:56 PM · #99 |
LoudDog and Thelsel,
This is not my original work, but I post it here as an FYI:
"THIS TYPEFACE -- TIMES NEW ROMAN -- DIDN'T EXIST IN THE EARLY 1970S."
There are several problems with this theory. First, Times New Roman, as a typeface, was invented in 1931. Second, typewriters were indeed available with Times New Roman typefaces.
And third, this isn't Times New Roman, at least not the Microsoft version. It's close. But it's not a match.
For example, the '8' characters are decidedly different. The '4's, as viewable on other memos, are completely different; one has an open top, the other is closed.
So yes, we have proven that two typefaces that look similar to each other are indeed, um, similar. At least when each document is shrunk to 400-500 pixels wide... and you ignore some of the characters.
"DOCUMENTS BACK THEN DIDN'T HAVE SUPERSCRIPTED 'TH' CHARACTERS"
That one was easy. Yes, many typewriter models had shift-combinations to create 'th', 'nd', and 'rd'. This is most easily proven by looking at known-good documents in the Bush records, which indeed have superscripted 'th' characters interspersed throughout.
"THIS DOCUMENT USES PROPORTIONAL SPACING, WHICH DIDN'T EXIST IN THE EARLY 1970S."
Turns out, it did. The IBM Executive electric typewriter was manufactured in four models, A, B, C, and D, starting in 1947, and featured proportional spacing. An example of its output is here. It was an extremely popular model, and was marketed to government agencies.
"OK, FINE, BUT NO SINGLE MACHINE HAD PROPORTIONAL SPACING, 'TH' CHARACTERS, AND A FONT LIKE THAT ONE."
No, again. The IBM Executive is probably the most likely candidate for this particular memo. There is some confusion about this, so to clear up: the IBM Selectric, while very popular, did not have proportional spacing. The Selectric Composer, introduced in 1966, did, and in fact could easily have produced these memos, but it was a very expensive machine, and not likely to be used for light typing duties. The proportional-spacing Executive, on the other hand, had been produced in various configurations since the 1940's, and was quite popular.
(Note: However, it is not immediately clear that the Selectrics and Selectric IIs could not in fact emulate "proportional" spacing. There is skepticism in some circles that these memos really show "proportional" spacing. Looking at the blowups, it appears pretty obvious to me that there is, but still researching.)
Did they have a font that looked like Times New Roman? Unclear; they apparently were manufactured in a range of configurations, and with different available typefaces. Note that these were not "typeball" machines, like the Selectrics; they had a normal row of keys. But it is worth noting that IBM had what we will call a "close" relationship with Times New Roman:
Courier was originally designed in 1956 by Howard Kettler for the revolutionary "golfball" typing head technology IBM was then developing for its electric typewriters. (The first typewriter to use the technology was the IBM Selectric Typewriter that debuted in 1961.) Adrian Frutiger had nothing to do with the design, though IBM hired him in the late 1960s to design a version of his Univers typeface for the Selectric. In the 1960s and 1970s Courier became a mainstay in offices. Consequently, when Apple introduced its first Macintosh computer in 1984 it anachronistically included Courier among its core fonts. In the early 1990s Microsoft, locked in a font format battle with Adobe, hired Monotype Typography to design a series of core fonts for Windows 3.1, many of which were intended to mirror those in the Apple core font group. Thus, New Courier--lighter and crisper than Courier--was born. (In alphabetized screen menus font names are often rearranged for easier access so now we have Courier New MT in which the MT stands for Monotype Typography.)
Courier's vanquisher was Times New Roman, designed in 1931 by Stanley Morison, Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation, with the assistance of draughtsman Victor Lardent. The Times of London first used it the following year. Linotype and Intertype quickly licensed the design, changing its name for their marketing purposes to Times Roman. Times Roman became an original core font for Apple in the 1980s and Times New Roman MT became one for Windows in the 1990s. (Ironically, at the same time IBM invited Frutiger to adapt Univers for the Selectric Typewriter, they asked Morison to do the same with Times New Roman.)
So, as you can see, both IBM and Microsoft specifically obtained the typeface "Times New Roman" from the designers of that font; neither was the creator of it. And, as we said before, typeface includes not just the "shape" of the letters, but the size and spacing between those letters.
One of the differences between the Times New Roman as implemented on the IBM machines, as opposed to Microsoft Word? The IBM machines apparently had the alternative '4' character that matched these memos, while Microsoft Word's TNR does not.
Oops.
Now, would the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron have extravagantly purchased typewriters that contained the th superscript key? Would the military want or require typewriters with the 'th', 'nd', and 'rd' characters? Hmm. Ponder, Ponder. What would the 111th need with a th character... I'll leave that to the enterprising among you to deduce.
This is not the final word on this, and it is certainly possible that any documents are forgeries. But the principle argument of the freepers -- that it would be impossible for a TANG office in 1972 to produce documents that look like these -- is simply false. Within a few days, however, we should know for sure either way; these typewriters still have a following, and type samples should be forthcoming.
.......................................
For the original, including references, click here.
.......................................
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by bdobe:
"[T]he apostrophes are curlicues of the sort produced by word processors on personal computers, not the straight vertical hashmarks typical of typewriters. Finally, in some references to Bush's unit--the 111thFighter Interceptor Squadron--the "th" is a superscript in a smaller size than the other type. Again, this is typical (and often done automatically) in modern word processing programs. Although several experts allow that such a rendering might have been theoretically possible in the early 1970s, it would have been highly unlikely. Superscripts produced on typewriters--the numbers preceding footnotes in term papers, for example--were almost always in the same size as the regular type." [ link to Weekly Standard story ] |
Another interesting coincidence is if you retype the memo in Microsoft Word using all the default settings (i.e. Times New Roman, 12 point font, etc.) you get an exact duplicate of the CBS memo. All the line breaks happen at the exact same spots. Every letter lines up exactly the same as the CBS memo. Coincidence? |
Message edited by author 2004-09-10 14:17:21.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 02:25:27 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***Ok, Ron...I'll concede. Leslie Cagan is a socialist. If you go to the UFPJ web site though, their unity statment says they are a coalition of over 840 groups with various idealogies, but with one firm goal in mind. That is to oppose the war agenda and militarism of the Bush administration and promote peace and justice. I never saw anything that said anything about promoting communist or socialist idealogy. So she may be a great organizer, but I don't see where you can even jump to the remote conclusion in your last couple of statements above, that because she's working so hard for them that the organization on the whole supports her socialist/communist idealogy. I think that's a big stretch, if you ask me. |
Because if I DIDN'T jump to that conclusion, I would have to believe that the UFPJ, and their 800+ groups, were blind to the fact that she was a socialist when they gave her the position, and were, therefore, blind to the fact that she is USING them to further her agenda. |
***Please prove to me that she is "using them to further her agenda." Where in the UFPJ web site does it say anything about communist/socialist idealogies?
What I find so curious is you're so quick to denigrate someone who has worked so long and hard for peace and justice with so many different issues over so many years. Regardless of her economics, she is not promoting killing or destruction or placing limitations on liberty, as say the Bushites are.
So then my only conclusion from this is that you, and the rest of the conservatives/republicans are really just fearful of economics that she espouses, and that it is THIS that you are most apt to defend. For you and others of your ilk, it has nothing to do with democracy, liberty, homeland security or human rights, but rather defending the way money is made in this country and the allocation and distribution of resources, and the accumualtion of power in the hands of the few. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 09:53:04 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 09:53:04 AM EDT.
|
