Charlie Rose hosts conservatives reassurring each other and honing their disinformation

[JohnWxy]

Rose does this so well, hosting conservative idiots honing their talking points and trying to convince each other their imaginary world really exists.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11921">Update on the 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates - Chaarlie Rose Show, Sept 29]

Rose shows a tape of Christie accusing Obama of poor leadership because the Republicans repeatedly threatened to close down the government if they don't get THEIR way ... which is to defund & demolish the government. That's all Obama's fault. This is what the GOP is selling voters - with M$M's help (Hey Charlie, how many times have you said 'filibuster' or 'filibuster by amendment' in the last two years? Huh?).


Yeah right, they are begging Christie to run "because they see they have a real opportunity to beat Obama" -- it's NOT because they know that they have a platoon of idiots running who all will lose to Obama by double digits. The one who could make it "close" - i.e. lose by 4 pts, Romney, they can't stand because he sounds too rational; not screw-ball enough.


Conservatives love talking to each other to firm up their depiction of the imaginary world they console themselves with.


All the GOPers potential candidates are talking defund and downsize Government (deregulation on steroids) and more tax tricks to over-burden the Middle Class to the benefit of Corporations and the most wealthy. This is the exact same formula they used in Cheney's regime - and will bring us the same results - weak aggregate demand, slow growth and another TRICKLE DOWN-DEREGULATION DISASTER. Why do they think the same policies will get different results? --- easy, because they don't think.

[Lionessa]

1. Charlie Rose lost any credibility he had a long time ago. He's been a Repub tool for ages.

[JohnWxy]

2. this needs to be pointed out and commented upon, repeatedly. Tolerating disinformation is not an

effective way to fight it. And fight it we must. Charlie Rose show site accepts comments.

We should challenge disinformation whenever it is being proferred. Big Lies acquire credibility by their unchallenged repetition.

[Lionessa]

3. If only that worked. Just last eve I tried to have a conversation

with someone about a factual issue, but he had it in his head that his opinion was more valid than my facts, why?!? Because in his mind, since I was only repeating the facts I had learned and he was only repeating the "facts" that he had learned (on FNC) we should all be allowed to our "opinions."

In other words, you can spout facts till you are blue in the face, the problem is, they think we are lying and too stupid to see the "facts." I even tried to point out last night that his concept of the facts were rather akin to conspiracy rantings since even in his own description of the "facts" there were no facts to back his final premis up but rather an interpretation of the facts that we basically both agreed existed.

Something akin to what was on many of the MSNBC, CURRENT, & ComedyCentral this week about the NRA guy who lists all the great things Obama did for gun owners, then says that it's just Obama's way of putting them all off guard so in his second term he can completely remove the second amendment and come for your guns.

They're just nuts, there's no reasoning with them.

[saras]

4. Sad but true. It's not POSSIBLE to think in sound bites.

And it's damn hard work, akin to learning calculus, to learn to use logic instead of emotion and soundbites to think with.

[JohnWxy]

5. I am talking about noting disinformation or slanted presentations in the media. If you do not

think commenting on media cites (newspapers, tv sites etc) has any effect, why not just blow your brains out? I must believe that making the effort is worth the effort. I believe in the dictum: "Never say 'die'." If you think it's 'over', then it will be.

NOw, regarding this individual with his 'facts' you referred to, I obviously don't know any of the details but I certainly would like to hear this individuals argument and 'facts' to 'have a go' at it. It is a typical conservative tactic to refer to 'studies' by certain groups (like CATO institute of disinformation) and contend that their conclusions are legitimate. It is possible to examine the basis of their conclusions and show they are not legitimate.

I do not think the situation you sited is comparable to responding to a media site. Note, when responding to a media site, they are (excluding Faux News Network*) to a degree, affected by viewer comments. But if nobody who actually thinks ever submits comments - well then, comments NOT SUBMITTED will NOT have any affect on them. When you are communicating with a media site you are going to be read by many people. I do not like to waste my time talking personally to idiots because I am taking my time to talk to one person. If you comment on a media site you are talking to a large number of people at one time (some employed by the media site, and those who read the comments on the site). Thus the time taken is getting you more impact.

I certainly know, however, that if we do not register our objections to disinformation or slanted presentations on media sites your opinion privately held will have no affect.


* However, even Fox News may not be entirely inured to adverse public reaction http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/roger-ailes-fox-news-course-correction_n_980850.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl4%7Csec1_lnk3%7C98941">Roger Ailes: Fox News Is On A 'Course Correction' Away From Far Right

[Lionessa]

6. My point is that even if people are reading those comments,

they only argue with them, whether on the site or just internally... it doesn't help, as a commenter on a site one has no authoritative position and any sites cited as factual will simply be ignored or already be pegged as "part of the liberal, left-wing media" or "pundit".

It's a waste of time and energy. You want to do something? We need to get this OccupyWallstreet thing increasing to huge size, and in other cities it needs to be occupations, not marches. The internet is great for organizing, but it isn't great for changing minds.