I need some good examples of smear campaigns, political or not. This is for my kids Debate class. I informed her that KGB could give her endless examples.
Google vs. Facebook media vs. Sarah Palin birthers vs. Barack Obama media vs. Michelle Bachman Putin vs. Russian opposition Putin vs. the world Putin vs. the US Ahmadinejad vs. the US Chavez vs. all his opponents PLO vs. Israel Islam vs. Judaism
I think best recent example of smear campaign that succeeded would be Harper vs. Ignatieff (Canada).
US example - Richard Nixon vs Helen Gahagan Douglas during the 1950 U.S. Senate race in California. "Tricky Dick" nickname alone take the prize. Plus history showed it to be spot-on.
I don't think media needed to attack these two, they were doing fine job just by speaking up.
Thanks for making my point.
Is it really a smear campaign if _your own words_ , not even out of context, are used to "slander" you? It could be, but in case of media that would be just reporting.
Video linked is a prime example of a smear, just like the rest of Fox new programming.
Here is anatomy of a typical smear:
1. Create false consensus - usually by relying on sock-puppet "independent experts" or just use pundits 2. Fabricate, take out of context or present outliers as your data 3. Create sense of urgency - fabricate emergency or claim some wrongdoing that requires immediate action.
I don't see how Fox News is in any way affiliated with that video.
Additionally, we all lived through the media coverage of that election, so your revisionist tactics won't work on this one because we all saw it with our own eyes and we remember the clear bias in favor of Obama and against Palin.
My favorite part is when the NBC chick exclaims that Palin's assertion "that B.O. palls around with terrorists is just ridiculous." No, its a fact that Bill Ayers was his neighbor and friend and he began his political career in Bill Ayers' home. Bill Ayers is a terrorist. He has admitted to being responsible for the Weathermen bombings of the pentagon and state department buildings. Even Canada recognizes that he's a piece of shit and refused to allow him entry based on his previous acts.
Video linked is a prime example of a smear, just like the rest of Fox new programming.
Here is anatomy of a typical smear:
1. Create false consensus - usually by relying on sock-puppet "independent experts" or just use pundits 2. Fabricate, take out of context or present outliers as your data 3. Create sense of urgency - fabricate emergency or claim some wrongdoing that requires immediate action.
You reminded me, Global Warming. Your smear points are right on target.
I don't see how Fox News is in any way affiliated with that video.
Additionally, we all lived through the media coverage of that election, so your revisionist tactics won't work on this one because we all saw it with our own eyes and we remember the clear bias in favor of Obama and against Palin.
My favorite part is when the NBC chick exclaims that Palin's assertion "that B.O. palls around with terrorists is just ridiculous." No, its a fact that Bill Ayers was his neighbor and friend and he began his political career in Bill Ayers' home. Bill Ayers is a terrorist. He has admitted to being responsible for the Weathermen bombings of the pentagon and state department buildings. Even Canada recognizes that he's a piece of shit and refused to allow him entry based on his previous acts.
I think you should stick to demanding to see "real" birth certificate, at least this way you don't sound as crazy as when you post something like this.
I don't see how Fox News is in any way affiliated with that video.
Additionally, we all lived through the media coverage of that election, so your revisionist tactics won't work on this one because we all saw it with our own eyes and we remember the clear bias in favor of Obama and against Palin.
My favorite part is when the NBC chick exclaims that Palin's assertion "that B.O. palls around with terrorists is just ridiculous." No, its a fact that Bill Ayers was his neighbor and friend and he began his political career in Bill Ayers' home. Bill Ayers is a terrorist. He has admitted to being responsible for the Weathermen bombings of the pentagon and state department buildings. Even Canada recognizes that he's a piece of shit and refused to allow him entry based on his previous acts.
I think you should stick to demanding to see "real" birth certificate, at least this way you don't sound as crazy as when you post something like this.
You're right, Bill Ayers is a great guy. That whole bombing thing was a misunderstanding. Amirite?
I think you should stick to demanding to see "real" birth certificate, at least this way you don't sound as crazy as when you post something like this.
I think you should explain exactly what I said that is crazy. Making blanket slanders against my sanity or accusing me of being a tinfoil hat wearer is a distraction technique used to silence the other side of a debate. Since I'm neither of those, and can support my claims, I challenge you to refute anything I said in my post.
I think you should stick to demanding to see "real" birth certificate, at least this way you don't sound as crazy as when you post something like this.
I think you should explain exactly what I said that is crazy. Making blanket slanders against my sanity or accusing me of being a tinfoil hat wearer is a distraction technique used to silence the other side of a debate. Since I'm neither of those, and can support my claims, I challenge you to refute anything I said in my post.
He's about to start calling us racists too... wait for it, wait for it...
I am really not going to debate "B.O. palls around with terrorists" conspiracy. Instead I will just point at you and laugh while what left of your credibility disappears.
A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”
C) Bill Ayers was never charged or convicted of any weapons charges, bombings or weapons charges. While I agree, guy sounds like a radical, I presume he is innocent of anything but lots of hot air until proven guilty in a court of law.
C) Bill Ayers was never charged or convicted of any weapons charges, bombings or weapons charges. While I agree, guy sounds like a radical, I presume he is innocent of anything but lots of hot air until proven guilty in a court of law.
So by your logic we had no business going after Osama Bin Laden since he didn't fly a plane into a building.
Originally Posted By: sinij
Kaotic, can you see Russia from your backyard?
Nope, I also don't live in Alaska where there are places that you can see Russia from. Obviously she was using a figure of speech to indicate that she was responsible for territory that bordered one of our, formerly, fiercest enemies.
Originally Posted By: Bill Ayers
These bombings were carried out by the Weather Underground: -To retaliate for the most savage criminal attacks against Black and Third world peoples, especially by the police apparatus...
Originally Posted By: Bill Ayers
We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years. We are deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism. Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside.
More from the Weather Underground
Originally Posted By: Weather Underground Meeting
I bought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government. We, we become responsible, then, for administrating, you know, 250 million people.
And there was no answers. No one had given any thought to economics; how are you going to clothe and feed these people.
The only thing that I could get, was that they expected that the Cubans and the North Vietnamese and Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States.
They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education centers in the southwest, where we would take all the people who needed to be re-educated into the new way of thinking and teach them... how things were going to be.
I asked, well, what's going to happen to those people that we can't re-educate; that are die-hard capitalists. And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill. 25 million people.
I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.
Back to thread - Ayers issue is perfect example of a smear campaign, and Kaotic posts are fairly representative of smear tactics. Guilt by association, while weak attack on intellectual level, can be used to shape public opinion. When used, it attempts to put opponent into indefensible position or redefine their arguments into something that could be attacked. In this case, Anyers smear backfired for Palin, but that "backfire" paraded in media wasn't an actual smear against Palin, rather consequences of trying to use one.
Here is another example of similar tactic:
Kaotic, you accusing president of terrorism is unpatriotic and borderline on treason. Why do you hate America just like all these terrorists?
You completely avoided the issue. Palin wasn't the one making the connection between Barry and Ayers, that was the newscaster defending Barry against the facts. Consequently, the media's attack against Palin was nothing like what you suggest since the premise you suppose, that the media was retaliating for Palin's poor associative assumptions, is wrong. Try again.
As for my actions being treasonous, if that were true, based on the way the previous administration was excoriated in every single type of media, I don't think I have anything to worry about unless I'm actually right and the president really is a Marxist.
So you see, smears only work if the other side is afraid to stand up or not allowed to be heard.
As far as your assertion that guilt by association is in itself a smear tactic, I feel compelled to respond that who you choose as your friends is a direct reflection of who you are.
Additionally, I didn't accuse the president of being a terrorist. I said that one of his friends is/was a terrorist. None of my friends are terrorists. Are yours?
You completely avoided the issue. Palin wasn't the one making the connection between Barry and Ayers, that was the newscaster defending Barry against the facts. Consequently, the media's attack against Palin was nothing like what you suggest since the premise you suppose, that the media was retaliating for Palin's poor associative assumptions, is wrong.
This is not what actually happened. I already described how I see the situation, so agreed to disagree on basic chain of events that are on the record.
Quote:
So you see, smears only work if the other side is afraid to stand up or not allowed to be heard.
Smears work if you repeat them often and loud enough, you filthy terrorist.
When terrorist like Kaotic win, freedom, flag and constitution loses. Why do you hate freedom, flag and constitution Kaotic?
Now this is obvious exaggeration to the point of absurd, but notice how smear progresses you start with association, progress to direct acquisitions by conviniently forgetting that link is only associative, then use gross generalizations to dictate Kaotic narrative. At no point actually I am debating Kaotic, I construct and attack straw man while doing more and more smears.
I disagree that freedom flag and constitution lose. The will to excel just has not come back around yet because the top people who never worked to get there are a bunch of prancing nancies.
You see, history shows us that sheeple can only govern themselves for so long. Therefore in the cycle of things someone has to step and set things to rights before the cycle comes back around.
Humanity, like nature, needs wildfire to clear out the trash in order to make way for progress. The constitution is infallible. However be that as it may the law mongering in this country has gotten way out of hand.
History shows us that once a nation reaches a xenith point and the game of wealth is over stacked that something must be done to redistribute that wealth. I confess that people who work and earn their way to wealth deserve it but I contend that trust fund baby mega billionaires should be pillaged and that I should get all of their money.
If you don't agree with this then think about what is going on right now. Whether you agree or not we through the global economy are at war with the rest of the world and we are losing on that front.
We had our time during/after WW2 to be the saviors and police of the free world but clearly we need to take a term or 2 and play the world game from an isolationist standpoint. In doing so however we run the serious risk of turning into a police state with dictorial(not sure if that's even a word but i'm going with it) overtones but unfortunately it is needed.
The west has been the democratic powerhouse of the world but with the middle east now changing and moving to a jaded form of democracy it means that the void of all other government will slowly creep back into the west since the cycle demands it.
Mark my words it shall come to pass.
So sayeth the Donk by the never ending prophesizing power of the Jameson.
I disagree that freedom flag and constitution lose. The will to excel just has not come back around yet because the top people who never worked to get there are a bunch of prancing nancies.
You see, history shows us that sheeple can only govern themselves for so long. Therefore in the cycle of things someone has to step and set things to rights before the cycle comes back around.
Humanity, like nature, needs wildfire to clear out the trash in order to make way for progress. The constitution is infallible. However be that as it may the law mongering in this country has gotten way out of hand.
History shows us that once a nation reaches a xenith point and the game of wealth is over stacked that something must be done to redistribute that wealth. I confess that people who work and earn their way to wealth deserve it but I contend that trust fund baby mega billionaires should be pillaged and that I should get all of their money.
If you don't agree with this then think about what is going on right now. Whether you agree or not we through the global economy are at war with the rest of the world and we are losing on that front.
We had our time during/after WW2 to be the saviors and police of the free world but clearly we need to take a term or 2 and play the world game from an isolationist standpoint. In doing so however we run the serious risk of turning into a police state with dictorial(not sure if that's even a word but i'm going with it) overtones but unfortunately it is needed.
The west has been the democratic powerhouse of the world but with the middle east now changing and moving to a jaded form of democracy it means that the void of all other government will slowly creep back into the west since the cycle demands it.
Mark my words it shall come to pass.
So sayeth the Donk by the never ending prophesizing power of the Jameson.
You are under mistaken impression that I am going to debate tinfoiler conspiracy theories without openly mocking you.
Tinfoiler conspiracies like that Fox News is a tool of evil? Let me guess, you followed Olbermann to Currentv and are now one of the "1%" of viewers who watch that channel?
I am really not going to debate "B.O. palls around with terrorists" conspiracy. Instead I will just point at you and laugh while what left of your credibility disappears.
It's not debatable, which is why you can't debate it.
Congress under Pelosi had about 40% approval, and they lost majority. Republican Congress right now is about as popular as testicular cancer, last I read at about 6%. What do you think going to happen next election? Do I need to draw you a picture?
Congress under Pelosi had about 40% approval, and they lost majority. Republican Congress right now is about as popular as testicular cancer, last I read at about 6%. What do you think going to happen next election? Do I need to draw you a picture?
Someone has been watching John Stewart when he had Pelosi on his show. Great news source by the way!
Anyway, both parties are in deep shit. Neither can comprimise anything and they've got NOTHING done. When this happens, and IF you have a leader in the White House, that person should be A leader and bring the two sides together. It's happened before, it can happen again. Except this time we have no leader in the White House. Of course the democrats are holding out for that socialism trophy and they know whatever they don't like Barry won't like. So Veto is the word of the day. Instead of compromising and being a LEADER. He's worried about what he's going to get out of the deal.
You see they don't give two shits about us normal folk. Yet people keep voting the retards right back into office. You want to see a politician turn white as a ghost, Vote Ron Paul into the white house. They will fucking shit themselves, because they all will then know we mean business. If they don't get it then, well then it's time for some Tar and Feathering! We have got to get our Government back on the right path or we are going to keep losing rights. It's not about right or left it's about RIGHTS! When you lose that, the rest doesn't matter.
So i guess sinij really thinks Palin said she could see alaska from her porch. Sinij, you dont read your own posts. You have no conistency in your arguements. You steal you material from the daily show. Your mind is closed. I have tried to set you straight as you are young, naive, and probably a product of some shitty libreal arts college, more likely still an undergrad. All Inh can do now is hope that your parents kick you out and you have to get a job. Its the only cure
So i guess sinij really thinks Palin said she could see alaska from her porch. Sinij, you dont read your own posts. You have no conistency in your arguements. You steal you material from the daily show. Your mind is closed. I have tried to set you straight
Translation: You don't unquestionably tow the conservative line, so you are stupid!
Quote:
as you are young, naive, and probably a product of some shitty libreal arts college, more likely still an undergrad. All Inh can do now is hope that your parents kick you out and you have to get a job. Its the only cure
Translation:
If you are trying to change my opinion please a) make sure you understand what is that exactly you believe in b) come up with compelling arguments as to why I should reconsider.
As to stereotype game - you are 40+, went to a trades school, live in a rural area and beat your wife every Sunday when you get back home from the church.
I ROFLMAO every time Sinij posts. It's becoming hilarity how he cannot answer a direct question, only rebuttal with smears from the left. Don't ask his opinion either, he has to go back and check what the left is saying about the content posted before he can post his opinion. (sheeple)
Stop deluding yourself, you are not looking for answers, you are looking for me to unconditionally agree with your position. You will howl regardless of what I say or answer unless it is "Yes, I completely agree".
Stop deluding yourself, you are not looking for answers, you are looking for me to unconditionally agree with your position. You will howl regardless of what I say or answer unless it is "Yes, I completely agree".
Putting questions on issues aside, we've asked for YOUR Opinion and to get it out of you it took me to having to cuss before you would give it. You're a leftist, I get that you believe in a socialist system.
Stop deluding yourself, you are not looking for answers, you are looking for me to unconditionally agree with your position. You will howl regardless of what I say or answer unless it is "Yes, I completely agree".
You're a leftist, I get that you believe in a socialist system.
Back at you: You're a right-wing fringe, I get that you believe in a plutocracy and evangelical equivalent of sharia law on all social issues.
If you have to label it, I believe in centralized federal power, moderate fiscal conservative, and social liberal. It just from your right fringe anything short of complete deregulation and elimination of any and all social safety net is communism.
Its so funny to watch sinij repeatedly tell people they are for zero social safety net, when most everyone has repeatedly said they are in fact for a reasonable safety net.
Just one example of why he and his beliefs have a hard time being taken seriously.
Its so funny to watch sinij repeatedly tell people they are for zero social safety net, when most everyone has repeatedly said they are in fact for a reasonable safety net.
Your definition of reasonable is my definition of elimination. Excuse me not trusting your "reasonable safety net" when you and your fellow conservatives favorite talking points are welfare handouts and communism, wealth redistribution, and lower taxes.
You have as much credibility as a guy in a clan robes trying to explain that he is all for multicultural and welcoming society.
So, not expanding the safety net = elimination? People who cannot utilize language should not speak about other peoples' credibility.
The one sitting on talking points here is you. I tried very hard to prompt you to elucidate coherent points and participate in intelligent policy discussion.
Unfortunately, all you have proven yourself capable of is trolling and insults. You appear to have a worldview about the size of a pigeonhole, and nothing but insults for people who do not contort themselves to fit inside it with you.
I think I have been more than patient with troglodytes in all of my discussions, even when directly and very personally attacked. Make sure you take a close look at your fellow conservatives on this board before you play "trolling and insults" card.
Last I checked, the other people on this board didn't speak for me nor I them. So your comment is relevant how?
All I see is someone who repeatedly failed to articulate, failed to follow simple logic, failed to acknowledge other posters' actual views, and thinks he is right because he tells himself he is - and can take random data out of context, and regurgitate talking points to " prove " it.
It would appear to an outside observer, that you lump anyone who disagrees with you on anything for any reason together in some sort of fictitious right-wing " them ". Since you look down on " them " you seem to feel no constraints about acting in the most obnoxious manner possible, and no compunction to actually listen to others or consider things on merit. Whats most ironic, is you are a mirror image of a W Bush supporter - the same things I found so distasteful with the Bush administration and Faux News, would appear to be embodied in one sinij, albeit with a leftist slant.
You may not speak for other people, but you don't get to distance yourself from the negative if you don't speak up when they act out. When you are part of the choir delivering essentially the same message with various levels of obnoxiousness and insults, you are part of "them" and I am justified in lumping you together.
You may not speak for other people, but you don't get to distance yourself from the negative if you don't speak up when they act out. When you are part of the choir delivering essentially the same message with various levels of obnoxiousness and insults, you are part of "them" and I am justified in lumping you together.
You may not speak for other people, but you don't get to distance yourself from the negative if you don't speak up when they act out. When you are part of the choir delivering essentially the same message with various levels of obnoxiousness and insults, you are part of "them" and I am justified in lumping you together.
El oh El. I might just have to start calling this "sinij logic".
You sound like W Bush saying " if your not with us, your with the terrorists ! "
You actually just proved my point for me though, so thanks.
You may not speak for other people, but you don't get to distance yourself from the negative if you don't speak up when they act out. When you are part of the choir delivering essentially the same message with various levels of obnoxiousness and insults, you are part of "them" and I am justified in lumping you together.
El oh El. I might just have to start calling this "sinij logic".
You sound like W Bush saying " if your not with us, your with the terrorists ! "
You actually just proved my point for me though, so thanks.
You don't get to distance from actions of other on your side unless you speak up against it. You can try to spin it any way you want, but you don't get to take the high road.
You may not speak for other people, but you don't get to distance yourself from the negative if you don't speak up when they act out. When you are part of the choir delivering essentially the same message with various levels of obnoxiousness and insults, you are part of "them" and I am justified in lumping you together.
El oh El. I might just have to start calling this "sinij logic".
You sound like W Bush saying " if your not with us, your with the terrorists ! "
You actually just proved my point for me though, so thanks.
You don't get to distance from actions of other on your side unless you speak up against it. You can try to spin it any way you want, but you don't get to take the high road.
More sinij logic at work.
Other examples include but are not limited to: that someone on the road checking the forums twice during the whole week should play role of moderator, that freeze = elimination, that personal attacks are warranted for exhorting conservative minded folks to give 10$ to the libertarian/conservative version of the ACLU.
You are building a fantastic case for your beliefs. I approve.
I am not accusing Derid of attacking me, I am pointing his hypocrisy when he tried to play "innocence abused" card.
My point stands. If you are part of discussion, when someone on your side of the argument flies off the rails, unless you speak up against it, you not only benefit from these attacks, you also complicit.
By this logic, any muslim who doesn't speak out and condemn the terrorists is also a terrorist?
You are in a bar fight, one of your friends pulls out a gun and shoots someone you were fighting, then you both proceed to drive home in a separate cars and never speak about it to anyone. When you eventually get arrested, do you think you would be able to distance yourself from the shooting?
I am not accusing Derid of attacking me, I am pointing his hypocrisy when he tried to play "innocence abused" card.
My point stands. If you are part of discussion, when someone on your side of the argument flies off the rails, unless you speak up against it, you not only benefit from these attacks, you also complicit.
No, your trying to justify acting like a douchebag. Which is mostly what extreme leftists are about - self justification, and misplaced moralism.
![[mad]](/images/graemlins/default/m0938.gif "[mad]"){kind=small}
