read todays' GOP talking points

[SoFlaJet]

and count how many times it's used on CNNMSNBCFOX by republicans,who are pretty much all that's allowed on,and when a dem does get on they are shouted over by either the host(last nites Scarborough)or the other side of the"fair and balanced"approach.Last night's Daily Show guest Steven Hayes did HIS homework.Jon Stewart pretty much saw right thru the BS and called him on it.


http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/Luntz.pdf

[lectrobyte]

1. talk about some understatement

Quoting:

Do not forget Saddam. More accurately, do not let the American people forget Saddam. The visuals of the dictator being pulled from his hole are the single most potent case that has yet been made for our actions in Iraq. Unfortunately, there have been a plethora of other potent visuals to come out of Iraq which have seriously undermined the credibility of our presence there.

[Cocoa]

2. what a great find

we should all email that document to every whore who allows the republicans to utter those talking points unchallenged.

Not because the whores are not aware of all this, I'm sure they know all about it, but to let them know we're onto them.

I can't believe MSNBC does not disclose Luntz's political affiliation, they bill him as just a pollster.

[Hoping4Change]

3. Hayes' book is pure propaganda.. Kudos to Jon for calling him

on it. Quite a difference from that turncoat rat Christopher Hitchens who was on Tina Brown flogging the book.

[jasmeel]

4. Jon Stewart did an EXCELLENT job with

Stephen Hayes last night. I was cheering! I had seen Hayes on Fox (for as long as I could stand) and he was adored and unquestioned. Stewart went off! I needed a cigarette afterwards!

[charlie105]

5. Thanks for the great link. You should put this up on the

General Discussion board so more of us could see it.

[SoFlaJet]

6. Here's where I got it yesterday

I just thought it should be reposted today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1830924

[Richardo]

7. Is this a real document? It's barely literate.

Setting aside the content - an obvious, cynical and transparent attempt to rationalize failure - what's wrong with using the English language?

A few examples (I couldn't finish the whole thing.)

<snip>
So long as that kind of irrefutable proof isn’t available, a different tact toward indicting the Saddam regime must be taken.

The word is "tack". It's a nautical reference.

<snip>
Americans expect you to be confidence and focused on your mission – particularly when that mission is homeland security – and they do not expect you to waver or compromise on their freedom or security.

Try "confident".

<snip>
WORDS THAT WORK
“The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar. The terrorists who take hostages or plants a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid, and murders children on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up a nightclub in Bali and cuts the throat of a young reporter for being a Jew.

Oh, well that's just how the idiot talks. Surprised they didn't clean up the subject/verb disagreement, tho. :shrug: