http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3255

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2008/01/30/4800916.html

Though what we call conservative up here a lot of people down there would call liberal.

I really don’t put any stock in this RWA article. It is just a random sampling of human traits this author finds repulsive, and since he also finds conservatives repulsive he just tags them on his nemesis. You can find individuals with this set of traits in any group you can put together. He also sees no virtue in any of these traits. Depending on the situation and the line of work an individual has chosen these individual or grouped traits may be beneficial or detrimental to the task at hand.

Please reference at least one example of my stereotyping of all D’s as being “Evil”…… just one will do.

It IS nice after so many years of reading your screetchy screeds that you are slowly learning to be polite or whatever. Are Ds still Evil™? just checking
thx

TV,
Sounds reasonable…hope you have a blast with the composer, good luck.

O’Reilly - Admittedly I identify better with him because of idealogical similarities, which I think is quite natural, although I don’t accept everything he says at “face value.” It might not be evident to everyone unless they’ve watch him from his beginning on Fox, but he has become more conservative over the years. A natural defensive mechanism resulting from constant criticism? I don’t know why.

The other two topics you mentioned were treated essentially as passing items, and I don’t know enough of the details - time frames, etc. Please link sites if you know them - believe it or not, I do read all linked articles. Out of curiosity and increased awareness, if nothing more - the primary reason I visit Lies.com.

I don’t have time this week to research it fully. I haven’t mentioned it before, but I’m a musician, and get the opportunity the next three nights to work with a world-renowned composer, Frank Ticheli. Five-hour round trips each day, plus rehearsal and performance time, but worth it.

I never visit “right-wing” sites except for ScrappleFace (for the wit/humor) because I already know what they’re saying. I wish Air America was available, but can get opinions from the “other side” just as easily at Lies.com. That probably answers the question of why I get frustrated with Enkidu’s posts - he’s so focused on vengeful insults that the only thing I can glean from his mind is that he hates conservatives. Oh well…

What about the other issue where bushed linked a critical military bill which was required to prevent another 911, and then attached certain legal protections for long distance phone companies that had to remain in the bill or else he would veto the measure when it came to him, does that make sense to you to?

You addressed this to TV but I’ll take a stab at it. Do you have any other information? Bill number, timeframe, that sort of thing? The president can’t attach things to a bill, (except for a signing statement) he can send it back to congress and ask them to do it, but that may be nitpicky to your question since the end result is the same. It would seem to me that Bush would naturally sign most any bill that would fight this war, so I would think if anyone was attaching something to a bill to help an unrelated entity it would be his opposition. I will say that this type of thing happens all the time on both sides of the isle, the President even mentioned it last night in the State of the Union speech.

To ensure I understand you, when you disregard comments of LW partisan media figures like those in the video out of hand because of their obvious bias, do you also disregard the comments of RW partisan media figures like O’Reilly, or does O’Reilly hold more credibility for you because he better supports the establishment or authoritative voice?

Lastly, I have a question about the content in the 3:30 – 5:15 segment, particularly the observation (Andrew Card’s?) that a political marketing campaign can’t be launched in August so the selling of the clear, present and growing danger from Iraq was put off for a further three weeks, in other words the critical danger that Saddam posed with visions of mushrooms clouds and all was of paramount importance, but the need to sell the war to the American people at the right time (after August) was a higher priority in order to successfully galvanize the support of the American people. Does that make sense to you?

What about the other issue where bushed linked a critical military bill which was required to prevent another 911, and then attached certain legal protections for long distance phone companies that had to remain in the bill or else he would veto the measure when it came to him, does that make sense to you to?

—
As a Canadian born and raised in Toronto and residing in the U.S. for nearly a decade, I can tell you that substituting “Canadian” for the N-word is common practice among white men in many states. I have come across it many times.

In 1998, I worked as a consultant and travelled across the U.S. for work with colleges and universities. On one of my first visits, in Maryland, I was introduced to a large group of white men as a “Canadian.” They all thought this was hysterical. I was surprised, but expected the usual questions about hockey, igloos and French.

Later in the evening, over a few pints, they confided that “Canadian” is used instead of the N-word when “blacks are around,” as it’s so ambiguous. I was offended by this. I was unsure if I was more angry as a Canadian – a white boy from Leaside – or because I was drinking with a bunch of rednecks who throw the N-word around.

As the night continued, I ultimately dealt with the situation in Canadian fashion: Pulling the shirt of one of the mouthy members of the group over his head, I cracked him in the head a few times and suggested if he wanted to be ignorant, he had to choose another country.

My travels have since brought me to every state in the U.S., and I can confirm that “Canadian” means the N-word in several, particularly in the South. Sad but true, eh?

Michael Wymant, New York, N.Y.
—

I like how he utilized the hockey manouver of jerserying that punk and laying it on ‘em. This is how I know he is a real Canadian.

1st, one must accept this “study group’s” obvious definition of a lie and their characterization of statements that didn’t come to fruition as lies. You do; I don’t - choices.
2nd, one must accept that this “study group” entered into their “research” objectively, seeking factual truth. You do; I don’t - choices.
3rd, one must accept any analysis by Keith Olbermann, Rachel Madden (of Air America, MSNBC political analyst), MSNBC, Wolf Blitzer, Jack Cafferty, CNN, etc. as being unbiased. You do; I sure as hell don’t - choices.
4th, one must accept as valid, unbiased and honest the findings of any “study group” that is funded to any degree by George Soros. You do; I don’t - choices.
5th, you must accept as valid and unbiased any film compiled and distributed by a political candidate (in this instance, Ron Paul) in a campaign year. You do; I don’t - choices.
6th, you must accept as “balanced” the email letters selected for public viewing in response to Cafferty’s “Question of the Hour” - 7 letters, none finding a problem with the study group or its conclusions. You do; I don’t - choices.
(btw, check the email responses on O’Reilly’s show for a similar imbalance - good luck).

I could add many more acceptance criteria, but you get the idea. Yes, I know I’m make assumptions as to your acceptance of criteria, but I assume you concur with premises in the link you provided.

RWA/LWA traits are easily identifiable throughout the film, not just in the 1:50 you specified; Authoritarian submissiveness to the authoritarian aggression of today’s power-hungry leftists, and certainly Conventionalism in accepting the mischaracterizations of LWA premises. There are two sides to every coin, and the coin weighs the same whether heads-up or tail-up - choices.

Olbermann suggests “impeaching after the election, so it’s a completely ‘apolitical’ issue.” Sorry, KeithO, but your suggestion, in and of itself, implies that impeachment proceedings would indeed be polically motivated, only with a little revenge added for good measure. More to the point, in this case the call for impeachment is purely and solely politically motivated, whether in 2004, 2008, 2012, or later. The Dems know it will be correctly perceived as such by all voters, regardless of party preference, and that has surely been a considered criterion in their rejection of impeachment hearings to date.

“The Study” follows LWA guidelines perfectly with their conclusive analysis that: The statements (by this administration) “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effective galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

Allow me to provide the fairness and balance from my perspective: This “Study” is “part and parcel to a larger orchestrated campaign that has effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, has led the nation to be bitterly divided under decidedly false assertions.”

I’ve re-skimmed the wiki article at:

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

but I will not bother conducting a critical analysis. It’s enough that it is useful for establishing a simple picture (stereotype if you must, much like shcb’s annoying habit of determining where people sit before figuring out where they stand.)

Even if the RWA wiki article is grossly in error such that it is little better than a some Popular Mechanics 911 hit piece, well at least the wiki article serves a useful function. It highlights traits so that (a) those who exhibit the traits may reflect upon themselves and so that (b)those who find themselves defined as an adversary by those people exhibiting the traits can frame explanations in terms that a rwnj (oops I mean a RWA) might attempt to understand. Whereas, the latter (i.e. the PM 911 hit piece) serves no useful function except to further illustrate how the illusion of authority will trap the thinking of a RWA. I suspect all that is unintelligible and thus hilarious to you RWA types.

So to move forrwards TV, I will accept most of your highly specious criticisms of the wiki RWA article, while at the same time acknowledge that it fits to a tee what I’ve experienced corresponding with you clowns on Lies (and TV, yes, I like clowns too.)

Now, to bring the RWA discussion back to our topic: “The Center for Public Integrity on the Bush Administration’s Iraq Lies”, here’s a little test.

HOW many RWA traits can you spot in this video clip between the 3:25 and 5:15 minute mark?

(Hint - to “Uncritically accept that many problems are ‘our most serious problem’” is but one of the most obvious of the traits illustrated.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz9Ew1UBBj0

The rest of the short video discusses minor issues, such as IMPEACHMENT…

1) from your RWA perspective there is a denial that it can apply to yourself, so it must apply to your perceived adversaries, point by point, and you can prove it (don’t bother to demonstrate, I believe you can - or at least that you can convince yourself);

2) the author of the wiki entry (not necessarily the prof’s who conducted the surveys) is linked to Daily Kos therefore it is partisian therefore it is invalid;

3) the author is honest enough to admit the title has a problem, therefore he has admitted a weakness therefore he is not an authoritative source therefore the ENTIRE article is not valid,

4) these weak criticisms reminds you of a Dan Rather episode (let’s see, that be the one where the history of Bush’s service record was exposed, however one (of many, many documents and credible testimonies) turned out to be bogus therefore all mainstream media reporting of the dishonorable service history were banished from public record in a Rethuglican feeding frenzy over that one pathetic piece of paper, destroying a distinguished career which exhibited more bravery in two days in Vietnam than your Commander (who is now in shit) has exhibited in his entire life)… so, because it reminds you of that succesful Rovian attack on Dan Rather, you are confident to conduct any similar atack on that article, therefore, predictably, the article is not valid;

5) you then dehumanized the author with the derogatory label of “clown”, which has the pleasing effect of making you feel superior to him but the main motive is to make him seem less human than you so that you appear to ahve more authority in setting up a straw man lie (”If this clown wants to stereotype all conservatives with an acronym…” FIRST, who knows what he wants he could just as easily wish that this whole analysis did not fit so well and SECOND he is not stereotyping ALL conservatives, just the ones that exhibit a particular sort of intentional self delusional bullheaded ignorance, there are lots of conservatives that do not fit that stereotype in fact most that I know in person do not)… so because you called him a clown and you feel superior nothing he says and nothing said in his defence makes any difference to you, therefore the author and his article and anyone who supports him* is not valid.

With the stage set in #5, your coup de grace is a pre-emptive strike against anyone who would attempt to raise awareness of the RWA personality trait. But kudos to you, because what we are talking about is a personality trait, and the article itself makes clear that the personality type could also maifest itself in left wingers too (citing the example of communists.)

That the focus has been on the RWA dominating American conservative politics is, fom my perspective of an outsider observing your country, entirely appropriate to the Rovian tactics and shift in power structures that we’ve seen since 2000 (and before).

*do I support the author? Frankly, I just skimmed the article yesterday and it seemed partly related to the debate about banning shcb so I presented it here, now that I have your opinion (ahem) I’ll go back and take a closer look. By the way, I fully realize the paradox that the more you object to the article the more it seems to apply to you, in that way it is a lot like Swift Boating someone, so I’ll try not to hold that against you too much…

Examining the three attitudinal clusters used to define RWA folks, from my perspective the criteria appear to define LWA folks. If necessary, I can easily match the author’s bullets point-by-point, giving examples to illustrate.

Based on discussion in the wiki comment section, the author of the entry essentially admits his working relationship with Daily Kos… partisan, by chance? He even admits that the title of the article is misleading, while proclaiming the contents to be valid. Reminds me of a Dan Rather episode… If this clown wants to stereotype all conservatives with an acronym, who cares? If his ideas are adopted in sloganeering tactics, it seems to place the sheep-like users in the LWA arena.

if the tin pot fits…

o, btw, can I borrow the car tonight yMom? thx