Have we at DU adopted "The Bush Doctrine, Part II"?

[Atticus]

That was the infuriating assumption, in place for eight years, that SIMPLY SAYING SOMETHING LOUDLY AND OFTEN MADE IT TRUE.

"A" hates Obama, therefore----(fill in the blank).

"B" is totally in the tank for Obama, therefore-----(ditto)

These "frames" are transparent and totally useless distractions if reasoned discussion is what is being attempted. Such divisive and unsupported accusations are in the same category of political mind sewage as "Why do you hate America?" and "Those who want to give aid an comfort to our enemies say----"

Yes, for a while, BD II actually worked. But, it eventually began to unravel and history will judge it harshly, I believe. Beyond that, it was WRONG: each use of it was a separate LIE.

I'm sure that there are a handfull of wonks on this board who, likely because of their employment, have actual knowledge of what is actually shaping up as "the Health Care Reform Bill". The rest of us are trying to winnow through the chaff slung around by the MSM---and ideologues here and elsewhere---to come to some reasoned conclusions and make rational judgments about who and what to support.

A little less heat and a lot more light would better serve OUR agenda.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Apparently so. First, Nader accepted GOP money. Now Hamsher is on the GOP payroll

It's clear what that shows.

[Atticus]

2. Thank you for an excellent example of what I was talking about. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. Hamsher will soon be campaigning for Sarah Palin nt

[Thickasabrick]

11. OMG....seriously, how much per post are you getting paid to

slam Hamsher?

Your responses have absolutely zero relevance to the OP but yet you just keep bringing up Hamsher. Is it like $1.00 per post? Today alone I bet you've cleared $50 bucks....good job!!

:puke:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. Don't look at me! I'm not on the Grover Norquist payroll. Seriously!

I'm not a GOPer by any stretch of the fucking Norquist-Hamsher-Nader imagination.

[Thickasabrick]

16. Oh...I don't think it's the GOP payroll.....I think it's the DLC nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

18. Like Nader, you've just admitted what you are

Nader said that if it took destroying this entire nation, to change it, then by golly, he was going to destroy it.

As far as I'm concerned, you are another Grover Norquist.

[Thickasabrick]

20. Bummer - you didn't mention Hamsher...no dollar for you. nt

[bigwillq]

25. ........

:rofl:

[Atticus]

17. Are you OK? Do you need help? Seriously. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

19. Yeah I do! - I need GOPers like Nader and Hamsher to get the f*ck off this planet nt

[Thickasabrick]

21. ChaChing nt

[glitch]

24. Anti-Nader probably worth some change too.

Perhaps we should quit feeding it.

[timeforpeace]

27. Did she get 2 bucks for that or just one?

[havocmom]

31. and a splint for your right index finger

It must be exhausted.

[havocmom]

9. But wait, there's more!

It's like a hoard of Billy May Pitchmen have invaded DU

Excellent OP. Spit tea all over the desk at how quickly the example was provided.

[sabrina 1]

7. This is why you lose credibility

You just made an allegation of a financial agreement between Jane Hamsher and the GOP. I see nothing other than your assertion to back that up.

If she is being paid by the GOP then back it up or your allegation is about as useful as the rightwingnuts' claim that 'you're either with us or against us'.

We have spent years attacking the right for this kind of truthiness. One doesn't have to support her alliances by lying about them. They stand on their own for anyone to agree or disagree about.

Unless you provide proof of this allegation, I will assume it is false and focus on the facts we do have proof of.

[Atticus]

10. Thank you. I was beginning to feel like the last trooper at Ft. Apache. nt

[sabrina 1]

22. Once mob fever takes over, truth goes out the window.

I did not get an answer to my question, so clearly the commenter decided to lie

to strenghten his/her case against someone s/he disagrees with. It must be a weak case if it requires lies to bolster it.

I do not agree with Hamsher's choice of allies in the case of Norquist. I see no reason to add libelous charges to explain why.

I oppose even more, many of the alliances formed by our Democratic Representatives since they actually have the power to influence our lives. I don't need to make false charges to explain why.

You're welcome Attic btw ~ there is simply no excuse, even in the case of Bush, to lie, if the truth speaks for itself.

I'm still waiting for the evidence of Hamsher's financial arrangement with the GOP but I have a feeling it will not be forthcoming ... :-)

[billh58]

23. The responses to

your OP have provided a perfect example of the concept of "framing" a position as introduced by the Neoconservative think tanks in the 1970s, in their quest to divide this country not only politically, but ideologically and socially as well.

[rwheeler31]

4. Too many are in it for the money.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. Yep, the latest one is Hamsher. She's in bed with the father of right wing extremist GOPism nt

[Thickasabrick]

15. ChaChing nt

[EFerrari]

6. "More light!" -- a good idea.

:kick:

[liberal N proud]

8. YES!

[Thickasabrick]

12. Your post is a breath of fresh air.....K&R nt

[MindandSoul]

14. Good points! Thanks!

[varelse]

26. Some light might be found here

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/in-house-many-paths-to-218.html

Nate's in favor of the Senate bill and I'm not - but he does make good arguments for his position.

[Thickasabrick]

28. He is fantastic and I agree, he makes some great arguments for

the current bill.

[TomCADem]

29. Good Points - I'd Also Add That Profanity Is Rarely Convincing

There is large proliferation of one line posts with a provactive title, which then gets kicked to the top by similar one line posts and rec's while a flame fest ensues. DU can be and has been gamed when such non-substantive posts manage to dominate the board. It is easy to troll for one side or the other by developing provacative one line posts, but what is the point except to polarize the DU community.

[pnorman]

30. Since Ralph Nader's name has been invoked here,

I might as well cite this earlier DU discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7267942&mesg_id=7270472