I was not going to comment on this thread, until Jim made the Rush Limbaugh
Reference.
----Original Message Follows----
>>First thing, his snide, sniping tone tells me that he most likely plays
>>fast and loose with facts. I don't much listen to folks who write like
>>this, because they never fail to throw out a million "facts" that may or
>>may not be true.
Again, referencing Jim's observation, the same can equally be said of Rush
Limbaugh. In fact, that is why I enjoy the commentary of both Michael Moore
and Rush Limbaugh, each uses humour to point out the folly and foibles of
the other side. Humour and satire is an effective vehicle to deliver a
political message. To this date, we quote the political humour of Samuel
L. Clemens.
>>You could make a career out of trying to track down what they purport to
>>be true.
Again, oddly enough you are correct. I believe it is Harper's Bazaar that
has a writer on it's staff to list the lies and/or half truths told by Rush
Limbaugh for one of their Spring editions. I will list one lie below
because it segues nicely to your other argument.
I do not believe anyone so painstakingly vets the articles of Moore. That
may be due, in part, to his smaller circulation rather than his relative
accuracy.
> And if even half of these allegations were true, do you imagine for a
> second that they wouldn't be splattered all over the front pages of
> every newspaper in the country, starting with the New York Times?
> Absolutely they would.
Again, no. As a rule, complicated financial crime makes for bad copy.
People understand a stained dress. They do not understand complicated
financial fraud.
I hate to turn this into a left v. right thing. So do not take it as such.
But Iran-Contra makes for a perfect example. The Iran-Contra affair is
extremely well documented but those documents are a mound of financial
papers. You can go to your local library and find books that amount to
nothing more than hundreds of pages of balance sheets that outlined the
Iran-Contra affair. They made for poor copy and a difficult prosecution.
Now here is that lie I promised you :) Limbaugh stated repeatedly that no
one was indicted by Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh. In fact,
there were fourteen indictments (I looked it up). Most of the 14 people
indicted were either convicted or plead guilty.
Now, how many people do you know that are even vaguely aware of what
Iran-Contra was? How many people knew what color Lewinsky's dress was?
>>If someone's going to make accusations, let them make them in a calm,
>>reasoned manner. Not this catty, nyah nyah nyah attitude.
I seem to use "Hakuna Matata" a lot lately, but we once again return to
Rush.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:06:48 EDT